Powered by Jitbit .Net Forum free trial version.

HomeFallen London » Election

A place for in-game political discussion.

Why I am Supporting Her Royal Highness Messages in this topic - RSS

Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/28/2018
Fallen London is dreary, dismal, decrepit, and, altogether, not very nice to look at. There is no greater testament to this sad reality then the fact that so many Londoners flee daily into the sickly sweet embrace of honey dreams. There they hope to find the beauty, light, and excitement missing from their dreadful, dim lives.

The Captivating Princess herself is no exception to this rule; for all her wealth, she longs for the awe inspiring charms, sights, and treasures of faraway places: the Surface, the High Wilderness, and the Elder Continent. The honey she uses might be a slightly different shade from the usual, but her motives are essentially the same as any Vielgarden Bohemian or Society Heiress. In this sense the Princess represents the spirit of Fallen London far better than any other candidate. Her infamous depravity arises from the ever present dullness of our half-ruined neathtropolis.

The solution is to make the real, waking world as beautiful and exciting as any honey dream. The pleasures of Parabola and faraway places will lose their luster in comparison to the city’s new grandeur. In this way the compulsive dreamers shall be coaxed to remain with us a little longer each day. The Neath has many artists and visionaries who can accomplish this great work, whether at home or across the Unterzee, but until now denial and complacency have stopped our city from bringing them together.

The Captivating Princess has been accused of narcissism, of focusing purely on her own wants and desires. This is certainly true, but her medicine will also be London’s medicine. In diverting herself from her addictions, she will help all her subjects. And for this reason I am proud to help Make London Magnificent for Her.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+6 link
incerteza
incerteza
Posts: 103

6/28/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
Fallen London is dreary, dismal, decrepit, and, altogether, not very nice to look at.
Are you sure the reason is, "London denied art" and not "London is damn poor and surrounded by assorted carnivores"?

Her medicine will also be London’s medicine.
Yeah, I bet both tax-payers and criminals would greatly appreciate the wonders of monumental architecture on Spite.

In diverting herself from her addictions, she will help all her subjects.
Maybe let's elect the Vake next year, it also needs a diversion from its human-hunting addiction.
edited by incerteza on 6/28/2018
edited by incerteza on 6/28/2018
+14 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

6/28/2018
Why I Am Not Supporting Her Royal Highness

Simply put: I find her campaign shallow. Not in the sense that it's a poor campaign, per se, but that it's a poor solution for what it claims to achieve. The Princess focuses exclusively on beauty and appearance. What good will it do to the honey-wretches, the soulless, the simply unfortunate, living in poverty and squalor, if their quarter is decorated and now they live in lustrous squalor? No-one builds a house and declares, "here will stand a ramshackle building filled with moulds and mildew, for the poor to live in". No; such things happen over time, precisely because the poor live there. Decorate it, and, yes, I admit that for a time - however brief - London as a whole will resplend again; perhaps even the poor will enjoy the new looks; but a beautiful house does not provide food, clothing, medicine, freedom from life-destroying addictions, and all the other very real problems faced by the unfortunate of this city. Nothing will really change in their daily lives, and within a short time you can be sure things will go back to the way they were. At best, the Princess as mayor might endeavour to keep things up at her own (or rather, the city's) expense; but it will certainly not last beyond her term.

Is that wrong? I am not arguing either way; I respect anyone's desire to vote for a candidate that does nothing of substance to improve the lot of the less fortunate. However, what's wrong is suggesting that the Princess is not exactly such a candidate. Tell me, what good will an art competition do to those who beg for scraps of food, or who drown their sorrows in the back-alleys of spite? If the alleys should be redecorated - they will still be drowning the very same sorrows in the very same alleys.

In a honey-dream you need not eat, or drink, or sleep; after a dream, good or bad, you wake up and, if you so desire, never come back there again. The real world is not so, and "beauty and excitement" serve little purpose if the rest of your life is in shambles. You say her medicine is London's medicine, but I say that it is not medicine - what would the Princess need medicine for? It is to medicine what a bottle of exotic wine is to a vial of pharmaceutical tonic. It's purely entertainment and hedonism, something to tickle the fancy of mind and soul. And her lavish hedonism may well be London's lavish hedonism, but is that really what our city needs?

Perhaps. But do not pretend that this is what our city's ordinary, less-fortunate citizens need.
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/28/2018

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+13 link
Lady Sapho Byron
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 806

6/28/2018
Supporting the Captivating Princess to advance Temperance is like going to the Cave of the Nadir to improve one's memory.

--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
+13 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

6/28/2018
The Princess is a walking testament to the destructive power of unchecked intemperance, a sobering reminder that drugs can turn even the most charming, beautiful and cultured person into a desperate addict. If her reckless consumption of a substance too vile and dangerous to even be properly illegal wasn't damning enough, her current campaign shows that even red honey - one of the hardest drugs available in the Neath - can no longer satisfy her cravings. Like a drunkard in the throes of delirium who is chugging all liquids in sight, no matter how poisonous, she leaps from diversion to diversion, and it's only a matter of time before disaster strikes.

I respectfully submit that the Princess is entirely unfit for the Mayoral office due to the clear and present danger that her state poses to herself, those around her and London as a whole. Like any other late-stage honey sufferer, she needs to undergo extensive medical care (including total abstinence from the wretched stuff) before she can be again considered a full member of society.

Once her recovery is complete, I will be the first in line to express my support. Until then, I implore Her Royal Highness: "Pull yourself together!"
edited by Passionario on 6/28/2018

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+12 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/28/2018
Investment in development can be a boon, for sure, but clearing out houses, shops, and factories, only to replace them with pleasure palaces that, in the long term, only significantly economically engage the wealthy... that seems likely to do more harm than good.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+10 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

6/29/2018
lukeskylicker wrote:
Please! I beg of you! Do not call her a narcisistic and hedonistic monster!

What else is there to say about her?

If you take away Jovial Contrarian's revolutionary connections, he'll still be a prolific writer and an acclaimed political philosopher.
If you remove Slowcake's infernal ties and lack of existence, the Exceptionals would still be a popular household series.
If you take away the Princess's monstrous proclivities, you get... an inexperienced young lady with no skills or accomplishments of note, apart from good looks and being born into the right family (and, possibly, marrying a foreign adventurer). Oh, and a debilitating addiction.

The Princess is not only unfit for the office, she isn't ready for it.

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+10 link
incerteza
incerteza
Posts: 103

6/29/2018
lukeskylicker wrote:
the least you can do is say why your canidate is better.
Does not own a garden of slaves tortured for his pleasure.
+9 link
Aberrant Eremite
Aberrant Eremite
Posts: 362

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:

I'm just pointing out you've got this particular predator/serial killer pegged wrong when it comes to her usual choice of victims.


Yeah ... I'm just going to go ahead and vote for the non-serial-killer candidate. Seems safer that way.

--
Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
+8 link
Lady Karnstein
Lady Karnstein
Posts: 384

6/29/2018
Speaking as one of London’s foremost hedonists whose infamous prowess was enough to grant access to the House of Chimes on it’s own merits, and speaking as one whose Salon, the London Labrys, is one of the most famous and infamous artistic Salons in London, I say no.

When the people actually held up their ideas for art, The Princess rejected them in favor of her own. She does not share her own, likely nonexistent, artistic collection with London, she does not truly care about Art. She is a poseur. When has she ever been known to back the arts? As one with my finger on the pulse of Bohemian culture I don’t remember any Echos flowing from her to art or artists. She also does not truly care about London, or she would not be okay with driving people from their homes.

None of that matters, though, in the face of the fact that the Empress openly indulges Red Honey. As an addict, she will certainly bring London into her addiction, likely by legalizing Red Honey and making more Londoners sources. Worse it will warp both the users and the victims. If one contends it is simply “A different hue” they are either dangerously ignorant of the truth, or complicit in the suffering of many.

And I will be frank, I am rather disgusted that I, of all people, even need to say it, but one must pull their head from their libido and shake off the influence of the Princess’s finely crafted sheepskin. Most of those reading this are human, and there is only one human in this election. I would turn to him rather than allowing another inhuman puppetmaster to add more strings and get more control of the human world. Slowcake and the Princess have too many yanking us by strings attached to oozing sores already.

And I would ask Anne, who is known for her strong morals, to ask herself why she now backs one guilty of the things that Princess has done, the one would leave people homeless. We have never seen eye to eye, but I have always held a certain respect for her as a woman of character. What has happened to change her in the past year, I do not know, but I would ask her to pull herself together and think of what she once stood for.



(OOC Note: To be clear: Nothing in this post is an attack on the poster Anne Auclair. I know literally nothing about her (I am even assuming a pronoun) except that her posts are entertaining enough they are ones I always read when skimming threads. Caroline is disgusted and disappointed. I am not.)
edited by Lady Karnstein on 6/29/2018

--
Lady Caroline Karnstein, The Moral Hedonist (Description)
Infamous writer, artist, and courtesan. Unrepentant Invert. Hesperidean.
Paramount Presence, Correspondent, Nocturnal. Poet Laureate of the Neath, Ambassador to Arbor
+8 link
Jolanda Swan
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1823

6/28/2018
There is a difference between building museums in a problematic area and demolishing houses where people actually live to build places that only a few will benefit from.
Now, if the princess was considered compassionate or even effective in politics, one could give her project the benefit of the doubt. But when one doesn't know that people use doors to go through, well, even if she was well-intentioned I doubt you would trust her with public works.
I have no doubt that any support for her plans is due to her good looks. Imagine the Detective or the Campaigner making such a proposition, and examine what your reaction would be.

--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
+8 link
incerteza
incerteza
Posts: 103

6/28/2018
Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
Her artistic transformation of London will bring more wealth to the people than any charity ever could. Wealth measured in self-knowledge, in redemptive transformation, in the enlightenment that flits at the ragged edges of desire, and in tear-stained tatters of still-living flesh.

So in layman's terms, what London actually needs is some kinky art?
+7 link
Aberrant Eremite
Aberrant Eremite
Posts: 362

6/30/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:

This is the central government we currently have and it's not healthy to pretend otherwise :P
You know, just heightening the absurdity is the whole fake "constitutional" debate conjured up by Huffam. As the Princess points out, the Magna Carta doesn't say anything about a member of the royal family running for mayor. It does however say a quite lot on the matter of the crown unjustly imprisoning its subjects. But those parts are passed over in polite silence by the entire British government. Dead letter, the whole thing is dead letter. The constitutional debate exists for no other reason then to let Londoners pretend that their government is nice and legal in its operations and that "constitutional concerns" actually matter.


All right then, let's talk about what sort of government we really have. Parliament may be weaker, making the Crown relatively strong, but the Crown is weak too. And so, of course, is the Mayor. That's because London is really ruled by the Masters, and we all know it.

And how did this happen? Because the Traitor Empress explicitly signed away whatever rights she had to London! Like Esau (since you mentioned Biblical precedent before) she sold her birthright for a pittance, and she will not get it back. Today, if she rules, it's not by the mandate of God, but by the mandate of the Masters.

The Masters did to London just what the English did to peoples they colonized all over the world. Gather a bit of intelligence, find out who's nominally in charge. Suborn that person and make them a puppet ruler. Allow the locals to keep their quaint customs so long as they don't interfere with the interests of the colonizers.

Under such a system, those who prosper are those who adapt to the ways of the colonizers. By, in this case, advancing their Notability through Slowcake's little book, running errands for the Masters, trading away pieces of out native identity to the Bazaar for power. Arguably, what being a PoSI means is being someone who has adapted to the ways of the colonizers and become useful to them.

The office of Mayor may not be much, but it is thing of and for Londoners. It's a thing of ours, that they haven't taken away from us yet, and that we can use to defend ourselves. You have it backwards. It's not that we should give up on being a republic because we've lost so much; it's that the more we lose, the more we have to fight for what's left of our self-government. As Montesquieu tells us, the animating virtue of a Republic is public civic virtue. The more Londoners act like elected office matters, the more it will matter. And that means using the office to promote the interests of Londoners - to fight for us, no matter how difficult that is. Sinning Jenny did that, and her successes were limited, but there's value in having a mayor fighting the good fight. London would have been better off last year if we'd elected the DTC - who, despite her flaws, has the interests of Londoners at heart - or the Detective, who at least had an interest in undermining the Masters' control - rather than the most amusing clown.

Now you so despise the office of Mayor that you propose using it as a safe place to store the very worst of Londoners, in the hope that she'll do less harm in office than out of it? No. That's giving up, on republicanism, on London, on the human race.*

We ought to elect someone who represents Londoners, who will work to preserve our identity and weaken the Masters' grip on the city. Mr. Slowcake, of course, represents another foreign power which is allied with the Masters, and proposes a reorganization of London which will serve that power's interests rather than our own. The Princess has traded away more of her humanity than any of us, in exchange for power and pleasure. Her platform is at best shallow and inoffensive to the Masters, and at worst will callously destroy the homes and lives of thousands of London's poorest and most helpless. The Jovial Contrarian is full of contradictions, but there is a common thread in his two opposite positions: fighting back against the alien and inimical powers that hold London in their thrall. He is the only candidate who deserves your vote.


* It's also bad reasoning, in thinking that the most cruel and callous of people is the least likely to abuse her power.

--
Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
+6 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/29/2018
VOTE The Jovial Contrarian!


Does he torture people for pleasure? Probably not!


Is he a cannibal? Probably not!

Did he do the ol' Constables' Ball joke? He sure did!

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+6 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:

Jolanda Swan wrote:
Plus, you know, the serial killer and torturer thing. That too.

Yes, and as we are all powerless to stop Her Royal Highness, we should all hope that she comes to eventually reconsider her behavior.



Oh, god, that sounds like a line out of a story about domestic violence. That's genuinely a bit horrifying.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+6 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
One of the scenes in the Shuttered Palace really sticks with me. It's a large meeting of everyone important in the royal court: the Duchess, his Amused Lordship, the Princess. Someone makes a mention of "the cages"...and everyone just starts nervously laughing and the conversation quickly moves on to other subjects. Everyone of importance and authority is fully aware of what is going on. The Commissioner of Police knows about it. His Lordship and the Duchess know about it. The Bishops of the Church know about it. The Empress knows about it. The Palace staff know about it. Mr. Huffam knows about it. The Princess's many doomed, idiot lovers know about it. And it will continue. It was actually far worse a few years ago, before the rest of the children became Monsters who hid in the dark. We literally have no control over it. At all.

But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy, so we just have to hope that this changes, somehow. Maybe making London more aesthetically interesting will help that change take place. I literally cannot think of any other solution short of killing Her Royal Highness. So, I figure, let's give the arts festival a try. Things can't get any more horrifying then they already are.

Passion - Mrs. Elio - takes a long pause, absorbing Anne Auclair's words. When she speaks again, her voice is soft and quiet:

So this is why you are really supporting her, then. Not out of admiration or hope, but out of desperation and dread.

I don't blame you. No one could blame you. She is remarkably adept at inspiring terror. As you've pointed out yourself, one just has to look into the eyes of the people around her to know it. No one dares to speak out, no one dares to tell her "no". We all keep smiling and nodding and telling ourselves that if we go along with her latest cruelty, maybe things will not be quite as bad tomorrow. Our bodies are not locked into the cages yet, but our minds are already halfway there.

She shakes her head:

This is no way to live, Anne. Not for us, not for her, not for London. It's not clearly not working. As long as our fear keeps saying 'y-y-yes, Your Royal Highness', she will go on to make things more horrifying. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity... and I say that as someone who works at the Royal Beth for a living!

She takes a deep breath before continuing:

Yet there is still one last solution to try that does not involve regicide. The Princess is deeply in thrall of her base urges - but possibly not beyond the hope of liberation. She may yet become the monarch that she was meant to be - wise, strong, benevolent - but she cannot do that without our collective help. Above all, she desperately needs to learn and understand the meaning of the word "NO", the importance of boundaries, the bitter medicine of rejection. All children have to learn that lesson, if they if they have any hope of becoming functioning adults.

The best time to teach her that lesson was thirty years ago. The second best time? It's now. If hundreds of thousands of Londoners speak out as one - with our voices, with our placards, with our ballots - then we will send her a message of "NO" that she will not be able to ignore or silence. And then, if we are bold enough, loud enough, numerous enough and lucky enough, if our hearts are in the right place and so are the false-stars above, we will finally begin to wake from the nightmare we've been living in all these years.

That is worth fighting for. That is the reason why we should all stand against the Princess. Not for an art show, not for a Constables' ball, not for colored plates next to our biographies - but so neither we nor our children would ever have to be trapped by fear and desperation again. For prosperity. For dignity. For G-d's sake.

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+6 link
Ixc
Ixc
Posts: 439

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:

"Fallen London is dreary, dismal, decrepit, and, altogether, not very nice to look at. There is no greater testament to this sad reality then the fact that so many Londoners flee daily into the sickly sweet embrace of honey dreams. There they hope to find the beauty, light, and excitement missing from their dreadful, dim lives. "



Anne Auclair wrote:
Dudebro Pyro wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:

Oh, what's next? Arguing that a single, grieving, and possibly mentally disturbed lady can't sell an entire city to a collection of scheming bat merchants for the dubious resurrection of her dead husband because her authority is ultimately derived from something as arbitrary as birth?

But she can't.

She could and she did and it was the right decision for London. That she made it for seemingly selfish reasons is entirely relevant, as this was sacred bond between Her Undying Majesty and her subjects at work. Her Majesty brought her people down to a realm where death is weak and dreams are strong and where there are unimaginable treasures. And now her Neathborn daughter wants London to embrace this destiny with a tremendous show of artistic pride.



What you are saying is the Neath is better for London's citizens, but you are also saying the Neath is awful and full of so much drudgery that we need a serial killer to host an art exhibition and demolish the homes of its poor. Is the deal bad for the Neath's citizens, and the monarchy harmed its citizens, or is the Princess wrong, and thus her position in office is not necessary?

And besides, she's the damn Princess. If she wants to host an art exhibition, why does she have to be voted in office to do it? The Shuttered Palace already has plays, as does Mahogany Hall. All she needs to do is rent a space and host her Exhibition, instead of subverting the democratic process.
edited by Ixc on 6/29/2018

--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.

Being poked incessantly by nightmares? Poke them back!
Vote the Viscountess for Mayor!
+6 link
LukeFBG
LukeFBG
Posts: 708

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy

Yes, and?

[This is mostly in jest.]
+5 link
Jolanda Swan
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1823

6/30/2018
I cannot believe Anne got us into arguing whether it is a good thing to vote for the torturer who never did a good thing in her life, but suddenly decided she needs to level a district to make art.
Which never interested her before.
Note that by art she means 'bright things that exalt me'.

Also note again the capricious cannibal torturer thing.

I am not Dr Schlomo but I believe that Lady Auclair, a respectable and moral person, could not reconcile the idea of the sanctity of kings with what the Princess actually is, and is now taking solace in abject denial.
What I am worried about, is that we are playing along.

--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
+5 link
Ixc
Ixc
Posts: 439

6/30/2018
The position of Mayor, no matter how powerless, is not meant for personal growth. And for one thing, the Contrarian is directly fighting the censorship of the Masters that you decry, while 'Slowcake', even if he doesn't exist, is pushing for a meritocracy and something close to direct democracy. Both candidates have experience and in the Contrarian's case, some semblance of morality. The Princess has neither, and the office of Mayorship is meant for London's development first, and hers second. And as I have said earlier, there are many others avenues for her development and her ideas to be implemented. The Foreign Office, for example, could have her as a diplomat (considering her business with Feducci) or a spy (considering her murderous tendencies and ruthless).

--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.

Being poked incessantly by nightmares? Poke them back!
Vote the Viscountess for Mayor!
+5 link
Ixc
Ixc
Posts: 439

6/28/2018
We, thankfully, have history to show her idea is doomed to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal

Basically, urban renewal's goal was to improve city living. This was done by destroying supposedly low quality housing, and making better housing in its place. Thus, landlords charged higher rent and eventually threw out their lodgers, who were now both poor and homeless. Unless her Highness wishes to house the people she displaces in the Palace herself, I doubt she has the attention span, nevertheless the magnanimity or humility to help those lower than herself. If the results displease her, much like her campaign, she will just ignore it and move on.

*worddump finishes*

--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.

Being poked incessantly by nightmares? Poke them back!
Vote the Viscountess for Mayor!
+5 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/29/2018
Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:

Arguing that art projects fail to improve city living because they don't provide housing to the poor is like arguing that poorhouses fail to improve city living because they don't serve lobster chowder.


Normally, I'd agree, but when the brief for the art project involves demolishing residential districts, the question of housing suddenly becomes relevant.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+5 link
Jolanda Swan
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1823

6/28/2018
It is one thing to be hedonistic to the point of trampling everyone else to get your Desire. But to cast a vote for someone who is hedonistic and narcissistic - this is pure self destruction, worhty of a Seeker.
Of course, one might think they are well above such concerns for the Princess would only prey on the lowly ones. Of course, these people will be soon reminded that in her red eyes, we are all lower than low. Spite may be a nusiance for you, but for her, there is no difference between Spite and your opulous residence.
edited by Jolanda Swan on 6/28/2018

--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
+5 link
Hotshot Blackburn
Hotshot Blackburn
Posts: 111

6/29/2018
Art - true art - inspires the heart and provokes the strongest of emotions. It is true that London is lacking in this - every year, the depredations of the Masters leave the people of London more listless, more downtrodden, more dispirited. But before you throw your influence in favor of the Captivating Princess, let me ask you this:

What has the Captivating Princess ever actually accomplished?

What art has she created? What famous works has she presented for the glory of London? What has she actually done all these years, in which she could have used her influence to make London a more magnificent place, besides lounge around the Palace and attend the occasional salon? If she is so set on making London magnificent, then why has she not already done so?

She has done nothing. In this she is lower than the most impoverished of Bohemians and the most miserably charitable of Society. She has done nothing to improve London, nothing to justify her place in its order besides the matter of birth. If London society became organized as per the dreams of Slowcake's campaign, where every soul was judged by merit and accomplishments, hers would not even qualify as Brilliant. Her plans change by the day, her ability to collaborate with others is nonexistent, she has offered no strong critiques of competing artistic movements.

And this is the kind of figure you believe will make London magnificent? Who will suddenly inspire a new wave of art and creativity? A person who's only notable quality is of who she was born to, a person who must rely on the most illegal and horrific of drugs in order to even approach the concept of creativity?

Absolutely, we can Make London Magnificent. I too share in the dreams of building something more than what is already here, drawing on the strengths of London and her people to build the foundations for a greater society. I can envision the great public murals of obsidian and marble, showcasing the heroes of modern society: the mushroom farmer, the industrial laborer, the scientist, the teacher. I can envision the wonder of the architecture we shall build to ensure that no one is homeless, the beauty of the crops we shall make to ensure than no one goes hungry, the glory of the rifles we shall distribute to ensure that all may defend themselves against the predations of those higher on that terrible chain. I weep to think of the art we shall make from the ashes of the Imperial Palace, and the paintings we will make with the lifeblood of the Masters as our palette.

But such a magnificent future will not come with the Princess. Her vision is short-sighted, and her talent questionable. London will only ever be Magnificent for Her.
edited by Hotshot Blackburn on 6/29/2018

--
Hotshot Blackburn: Messidor, Revolutionary. Paramount Presence. Hesperidean Breeder. A firm believer in kindness, solidarity, and the Liberation of Night.
+5 link
Aberrant Eremite
Aberrant Eremite
Posts: 362

7/2/2018
Azothi wrote:

Looking at history, Hieronymus Drake raises a fine example of who all-too-much resembles a more austere and socially inept Captivating Princess: the late Charles I....


The Captivating Princess wrote:


A perspiring Palace footman catches your arm as he notices you. "I shouldn't go after Her Highness, if I were you. She's requested to be alone. I think she's gone to the playroom." He fumbles in his jacket, and produces a sheaf of papers. "She wanted you to have these." The pages are damp, and covered in writing. It appears to be a victory speech of a kind. It would have lasted a whole week to read out, judging by the length. It's all been angrily scrawled over. Apparently a member of the blood royal has never been treated with such disrespect since Charles I.



High-fives Azothi.

--
Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
+5 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

7/2/2018
No, we've capitalized on one.

Dealing with rejection is hard for anyone, let alone someone who's gone for 34 years without ever hearing "no". It's going to be a long multi-step process, but I believe that the Princess will emerge from it as a better person.

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+4 link
Akernis
Akernis
Posts: 266

6/28/2018
incerteza wrote:
Honestly, I'm awful at history. I work with statistics, though, and cannot it be that the cause and effect are switched here? That once a nation actually gets enough resources to get back on its feet, it can start investing into art?

Kind of. You are entirely correct in that art for its own sake generally only become a thing once a nation is fairly wealthy, Greece, Rome, Spain, England, and France in their respective golden ages all comes to mind.

But state-created construction projects such as houses, bridges, roads, revisions of poorer districts (such as the one the Princess proposed for Spite) is one of the ways that a nation can create jobs and help economy flow again.

Of course, like many things when it comes to actual history it isn't guaranteed to work. Sometimes it helps create a steady income for more people which help the money circulate back into the system, and at other times it just leads to huge loans that the state might not be able to pay off etc.

--
Vena's profile - http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Akernis
+4 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/29/2018
It's a hoary old tropes, that all revolutionaries must want to overthrow established morality - when it would be equally revolutionary for established morality to be applied, consistently and equally, to all ranks of society.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+4 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

6/28/2018
Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
Perhaps you ought to be more careful what you say about the beloved Princess, sweet things.

Careful? Careful?




--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+4 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/28/2018
Jolanda Swan wrote:

I have no doubt that any support for her plans is due to her good looks.

I honestly just want a public arts festival. And Her Highness's public art festival is very well thought out.

Dudebro Pyro wrote:
Tell me, what good will an art competition do to those who beg for scraps of food, or who drown their sorrows in the back-alleys of spite?

Probably nothing. But then, none of the candidates are really offering to help the poor this year. In fact, one could argue that Slowcake and the Contrarian plan to make their lives worse through infernal surveillance and inferior policing, respectively. I think the Princess honestly has the best platform when it comes to helping London. If she were running against, say, Sinning Jenny, the Bishop of Southwark, or the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner then that would not be true - but she's not running against those people, is she?

Jolanda Swan wrote:

Of course, one might think they are well above such concerns for the Princess would only prey on the lowly ones.

Actually, as the Princess preys on her suitors and courtiers and people with exciting memories, she usually consumes people much higher up the social ladder then the average Londoner. Ironically, these also happen to be the high Society people who support the Throne and that the Revolutionaries want to kill. Perhaps explaining this rare burst of genuine emotion from the Contrarian:

The Jovial Contrarian's grin is wicked. "Oh, I think she's superb. I can't think of anything worse that could happen to the monarchy."

I mean, think about it for a second - if the Princess hates Spite because its drab and ugly, would she drink the memories of someone who lived there their whole life? No, she likes drinking the memories of people who have seen the Surface, Space, or the lands across the Zee - memories full of pleasurable and exciting sensations, sights, wonders, treasures. In short, it's a lot more dangerous to be someone like Feducci, the Merchant Venturer, or His Amused Lordship...or yourself, for that matter (as the Gift shows).

This isn't a defense btw or saying that this is somehow better then preying on the poor. I'm just pointing out you've got this particular predator/serial killer pegged wrong when it comes to her usual choice of victims.

I also think it worth pointing out that there seems to be a clear link between Her Highnesses Red Honey consumption and her artistic endeavors and support of imperialism. She wants the physical things she's seen in her scarlet dreams physically brought to London.

Come to think of it, one could also argue that in summoning the leading artists from across the Neath she'd also be summoning quite a few potential victims...people with exciting and pleasurable memories... But hopefully her Highness will be too busy actually building things to take advantage of that.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/28/2018

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+4 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

6/28/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:

Dudebro Pyro wrote:
Tell me, what good will an art competition do to those who beg for scraps of food, or who drown their sorrows in the back-alleys of spite?

Probably nothing. But then, none of the candidates are really offering to help the poor this year.

And none of the others claim to do so.
In fact, one could argue that Slowcake and the Contrarian plan to make their lives worse through infernal surveillance and inferior policing, respectively.

Slowcake doesn't pretend that he will improve the lot of anyone in particular - he just wants a different order, and of course he argues that it's "better" in some vague terms, but doesn't really state why or for whom. The Contrarian plays a double or triple game with the Constabulary, but I believe that whatever his agenda is, he truly cares for London: more on this below.


I think the Princess honestly has the best platform when it comes to helping London.


And here's where I fundamentally disagree. London is its citizens; there's also stuff like the historical heritage, but that's already been mangled pretty much beyond repair (or would need heavily revolutionary measures to restore - as seen in The Bones of London), or the notable architecture and landmarks - but those are not under any particular threat. The citizens, the Londoners, are what truly makes London, and they are suffering. Helping London doesn't necessarily mean suddenly uplifting everyone out of poverty, or establishing a welfare state, for instance; a long-term plan to improve living conditions could work just as well.

Here is why I say the Contrarian is good for London: not only has he expressed patriotic feelings (and criticized the Princess for lack of those), but as far as we know his stated goals would improve the lives of everyone. What's the most basic goal of the Revolution, after all? To rid the city of the tyrannical rule of the Masters and the Bazaar. The Liberation of the Night just happens to be the path to it. (One can argue that it's the other way around - especially since there's good evidence of the Liberation being something far bigger than London - but from the point of view of debating London politics, the first interpretation makes more sense.) Forget the Liberation for a second; is freeing London from the Bazaar's rule a good thing? Almost certainly, unless it were to descend into chaos and anarchy worse than the Master's rule.
So what does the Contrarian do? He supports the Revolution... but not the Liberation. Those destinies precisely about chaos and anarchy once the Liberation happens? Obviously not caused by the Masters departing, but by what made them depart in the first place. Without the Liberation, if there was a "third way", you'd get all the benefits with almost none of the drawbacks. Someone as level-headed as the Contrarian, were he in charge of the changeover, would almost certainly make proper arrangements for an interim government that would keep basic order and prevent the city from crumbling into chaos, from where a new life could be built.

So is this good for London? Fundamentally, I can't fathom how one could argue it's not: the vast majority of the problems in London right now are caused by the Masters and the Bazaar. The few exceptions are caused by other Neathy inhabitants and phenomena, but exacerbated by the defacto government not doing anything (and the parliamentary "official" government being essentially useless nowadays, by all accounts). Remove the Masters, and it's not a question of whether there would be benefits, it's a question of whether any drawbacks would outweigh the vast benefits. There is a good case to be made that the Liberation is so awful for the common man that, indeed, it manages to do so; but the Contrarian's stated "third way" simply doesn't have anything nearly as bad going for it, so it would have to work very hard indeed to not result in a net positive for the city.

And the Princess? She wants an art competition. And a redecoration. My argument wasn't only about how this doesn't directly benefit the poor - neither do the Contrarian's schemes - but also about how it's entirely useless in the long-term. Tick forward your plans for a grand reform for the common good, and said common good is a step closer - even if nothing tangible improves right now. Decorate the streets and fund some artists, and not only is everyone else still just as poor and hungry, but you have achieved nothing for the future and they will continue to be poor and hungry.

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+4 link
Aberrant Eremite
Aberrant Eremite
Posts: 362

6/30/2018
Hieronymus Drake stares coldly at the Hierophant

For a self-proclaimed artist, you are distinctly lacking in imagination. My point was that the mayoralty is what we make it. If we have the interests of our fellow Londoners at heart, then surely we ...

Ah, but you don't, do you? You aren't a fool; you're deliberately disingenuous. I shan't waste my time debating someone who speaks in bad faith.

--
Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
+4 link
Lady Karnstein
Lady Karnstein
Posts: 384

6/29/2018
incerteza wrote:
lukeskylicker wrote:
the least you can do is say why your canidate is better.
Does not own a garden of slaves tortured for his pleasure.



You forgot the mic drop

--
Lady Caroline Karnstein, The Moral Hedonist (Description)
Infamous writer, artist, and courtesan. Unrepentant Invert. Hesperidean.
Paramount Presence, Correspondent, Nocturnal. Poet Laureate of the Neath, Ambassador to Arbor
+4 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/29/2018
Barse wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy

Yes, and?

[This is mostly in jest.]

Well, in-character I don't want that. Which is a dilemma.

Another thing - consider how the cage gardens are not being reference at all in the election storylines themselves? Huffam is devoting the pages of his Gazette to discussing inane "constitutional questions" that no one really cares about. The existence of the cages is completely unchallenged. They are just an accepted, if undiscussed part of London life, fully endorsed and protected by all the power of London's political establishment. Find a character with any degree of Palace or public power and they are knowingly complicit. Hell, our current Mayor certainly knows about it and he tried to marry her. But of course he was a slaver, so the cage garden is not the sort of thing he would care about...

Vote against the Princess and she'll just go back to what she is already doing with complete and total impunity. Elect her Mayor and maybe she'll change a little. Or not. But we'll get an arts festival, which London legitimately needs to raise its spirits, depressed as they are from such terrible public secrets as the existence of the cage gardens and the whole royal family being monsters.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+3 link
Aberrant Eremite
Aberrant Eremite
Posts: 362

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
Anne would ... exclaim that as royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.


Hieronymus Drake would argue that the people of London expressed their true opinion of the Divine Right of Kings in 1649. And, for that matter, that the people of Paris did so in 1793.

Snowskeeper wrote:
Vote for the candidate with the best policy, not the cleanest hobbies.


Tanith Wyrmwood doesn't know as much about political philosophy as Drake, but she has a lot of experience at being a pretty girl living in poverty. Pretty girls get a lot of promises made to them. She's learned to consider the source, and to think about in what manner a promise is likely to be fulfilled.

--
Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
+3 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/29/2018
Ixc wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:

"Fallen London is dreary, dismal, decrepit, and, altogether, not very nice to look at. There is no greater testament to this sad reality then the fact that so many Londoners flee daily into the sickly sweet embrace of honey dreams. There they hope to find the beauty, light, and excitement missing from their dreadful, dim lives. "

Anne Auclair wrote:

She could and she did and it was the right decision for London. That she made it for seemingly selfish reasons is entirely relevant, as this was sacred bond between Her Undying Majesty and her subjects at work. Her Majesty brought her people down to a realm where death is weak and dreams are strong and where there are unimaginable treasures. And now her Neathborn daughter wants London to embrace this destiny with a tremendous show of artistic pride.

What you are saying is the Neath is better for London's citizens, but you are also saying the Neath is awful and full of so much drudgery that we need a serial killer to host an art exhibition and demolish the homes of its poor. Is the deal bad for the Neath's citizens, and the monarchy harmed its citizens, or is the Princess wrong, and thus her position in office is not necessary?

There's no contradiction. The Neath is filled with wonders. It's London that is dismal. London as a city badly needs to throw off its denial and update itself with new art and architecture.

incerteza wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Well, in-character I don't want that. Which is a dilemma.

I don't know much about role-playing, but I thought if you don't enjoy how your character is supposed to act, you're allowed to override it? After all, you're a real person who plays the game for enjoyment, and the character is a product of your decisions.

(I mean, unless you enjoy dealing with such dilemmas, of course.)

I legitimately enjoy dealing with dilemmas.

Didn't have any dilemmas in the last two elections, the choices were obvious in and out of character (Bishop and Campaigner). This election presented dilemmas, hence why I investigated Slowcake rather thoroughly and even thought about the Contrarian.

Lady Sapho Byron wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:

[A]s royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.

I claim no expertise in Christian thinking ... but this statement strikes me as possibly theologically unsound.

It isn't, actually. One might call it outdated or controversial or just plain wrong, but it has a pretty strong theological and traditional foundation.

Passionario wrote:
So this is why you are really supporting her, then. Not out of admiration or hope, but out of desperation and dread.

A combination, actually. The Princess's beautiful and commanding royal person is worthy of sincere admiration and there's hope that the arts festival will ennoble her and London.

Passionario wrote:
The best time to teach her that lesson was thirty years ago. The second best time? It's now. If hundreds of thousands of Londoners speak out as one - with our voices, with our placards, with our ballots - then we will send her a message of "NO" that she will not be able to ignore or silence.

She'll just go back to her honey and one day she'll have the throne or the regency and you won't be able to tell her "no" then.

She'll learn a lot of "nos" as Mayor - the first being that she can't actually bulldoze Spite - and she might actually learn some things from this. If you want someone to be responsible you need to give them responsibility, within reason (in real life, Prince Edward became infamously indolent because Queen Victoria wouldn't trust him with any responsibility). The London Mayorship, a one year post of minor power, is a reasonable experiment, I think. She's qualified to hold it, she has good plans, and the post and plans might improve her character, or at least distract her somewhat from murder and honey. Imagine if she decides she actually likes governing and art more then murder and honey? That would be a win win.

Worse case scenario, we're just back to where we started. So there's no real risk.

Aberrant Eremite wrote:
You make excellent points, and I largely agree. But I'd point out that after the Restoration, the English people deposed the Stuarts a second time, and that when William and Mary accepted the Bill of Rights in 1689, England officially became a limited constitutional monarchy. Hence Locke, the Enlightenment, and modern political ideals. Over the next two centuries, the power of the monarch declined steadily. By the end of the 19th century, a comment like "Royalty? In government? We'd be the laughingstock of Europe!" is actually a pretty funny joke.

With Parliament a doddering irrelevance and so many basic functions of government subsumed by an impenetrable Palace bureaucracy, we're pretty close to an absolute monarchy again, actually. Hence why so much depends on the decisions reached in our shadowy, silent Versailles, which is just one big monument to royal caprice.

Why is the Empress' Palace shuttered? wrote:

Apparently the Empress doesn't like light. Or sudden movements, loud noises, foreigners, treason, peaches. When you're Empress, you can do this kind of thing.

I'd remind everyone that when Feducci and the Princess have their wedding story, all of London just assumes that OF COURSE the Princess will be taking direct control of the Empire's entire foreign policy and handing control of the armies and navies over to her Prince-Consort and OF COURSE said Prince-Consort will be taking London to war to plunder the Elder Continent. The slightest royal command and everyone snaps to attention and salutes. The only parts of the administration not directly controlled by the Palace have become laws unto themselves - the Admiralty, the Ministry of Public Decency, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which are run by a Mechanical God, Mr Pages, and the Vake, respectively).

This is the central government we currently have and it's not healthy to pretend otherwise :P

You know, just heightening the absurdity is the whole fake "constitutional" debate conjured up by Huffam. As the Princess points out, the Magna Carta doesn't say anything about a member of the royal family running for mayor. It does however say a quite lot on the matter of the crown unjustly imprisoning its subjects. But those parts are passed over in polite silence by the entire British government. Dead letter, the whole thing is dead letter. The constitutional debate exists for no other reason then to let Londoners pretend that their government is nice and legal in its operations and that "constitutional concerns" actually matter.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/29/2018

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+3 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/29/2018
Ixc wrote:
We, thankfully, have history to show her idea is doomed to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal

Basically, urban renewal's goal was to improve city living. This was done by destroying supposedly low quality housing, and making better housing in its place. Thus, landlords charged higher rent and eventually threw out their lodgers, who were now both poor and homeless. Unless her Highness wishes to house the people she displaces in the Palace herself, I doubt she has the attention span, nevertheless the magnanimity or humility to help those lower than herself. If the results displease her, much like her campaign, she will just ignore it and move on.

*worddump finishes*

This wiki page is filled with High Modernist examples, which are totally wrong in terms of the time period. A better comparison would be the renovation of Paris by Baron Haussmann during the reign of Napoleon III between 1853 and 1870, which created the present day Paris, city of lights. This is relevant because the Captivating Princess has probably been directly inspired by its example.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+3 link
Lady Karnstein
Lady Karnstein
Posts: 384

6/29/2018
Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
Lady Karnstein wrote:
Do you know me? Because if you know me, you know precisely what sort of Nocturnal I am.


Lady Karnstein, I know precisely what sort of Nocturnal you are. A Bazaarine.


Ah that’s why I had no idea who you are.

It is, I suppose, a settled thing in the art word for the turks to try to make their mark by lashing out at those established masters of the school. I remember those days. The good news is as you mature out of it you will come into your own and discover how to really shine as a Nocturnal. I simply did not recognize what stage you were at, my apologies.

Maybe then I will know who you are.

You will probably learn by then, too about what suffering and art means, but this is neither the time nor place. And speaking of time, I seem to be out of it for now. Pity.

--
Lady Caroline Karnstein, The Moral Hedonist (Description)
Infamous writer, artist, and courtesan. Unrepentant Invert. Hesperidean.
Paramount Presence, Correspondent, Nocturnal. Poet Laureate of the Neath, Ambassador to Arbor
+3 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/29/2018
Passionario wrote:

If you take away the Princess's monstrous proclivities, you get... an inexperienced young lady with no skills or accomplishments of note, apart from good looks and being born into the right family (and, possibly, marrying a foreign adventurer). Oh, and a debilitating addiction.

If you strip away the Princess's monstrous proclivities, you get Royalty : born to rule, art of command, divine right, god's blessing. Did the heaven's choose just anyone to be London's only Neathborn Princess? No, they chose her, so she's special.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/29/2018

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+3 link
Snowskeeper
Snowskeeper
Posts: 575

6/29/2018
The Contrarian is no better! He has easily discovered revolutionary ties, has not changed his behaviors in polite company despite sending far more than one person to the boatman (so he is both actively and wilfully killing people), and with how often he flip-flops on the most minor (and as his bathtub revelation when he anounced he was running again major issues are included) issues he may very well change his mind by hollowmas, doubleback on everything he's done, and make no progress during his term. At least Feducci has acomplished something as a spy. Even though it made him an ineffective mayor.



I don't think he's flip-flopped on a single issue. I think he holds nearly the same positions as he did last campaign.


It's the front he's presenting to the rest of the world that's different.

--
S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
+3 link
Passionario
Passionario
Posts: 777

6/29/2018
Anne Auclair wrote:
Did the heaven's choose just anyone to be London's only Neathborn Princess? No, they chose her, so she's special.

Given how removed the Neath is from the sky and stars, there is a strong arguement to be made that, as a Neathborn Princess, she is the only member of the Royal Family who explicitly without the heavens' blessing. That would explain quite a few things indeed.
Fortunately, this election is not about the "choice of heavens", it's about the choice of PEOPLE. Otherwise, you could have Madame Shoshanna draw the horoscopes of the candidates and be done with it.

--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
+3 link
Dudebro Pyro
Dudebro Pyro
Posts: 765

6/29/2018
Passionario wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Did the heaven's choose just anyone to be London's only Neathborn Princess? No, they chose her, so she's special.

Given how removed the Neath is from the sky and stars, there is a strong arguement to be made that, as a Neathborn Princess, she is the only member of the Royal Family who explicitly without the heavens' blessing. That would explain quite a few things indeed.

I was going to say just this. Normally, I'd agree with your argument, Anne, but given the circumstances I feel like the Empress's royal house has kind of forfeited any divine rights and blessings it might have had.

lukeskylicker wrote:

Although no critics have said their canidate yet let me throw this fact out in the open so nobody can claim ignorance.
[...]
Seriously though, if your going to denounce the Princess the least you can do is say why your canidate is better.

I did write a lengthy explanation of why I believe the Contrarian is truly good for London (and the Princess isn't), which I won't quote here to preserve space but you can find at the end of the first page of this thread.

--
Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
+3 link
Anne Auclair
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2221

6/29/2018
Passionario wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Did the heaven's choose just anyone to be London's only Neathborn Princess? No, they chose her, so she's special.

Given how removed the Neath is from the sky and stars, there is a strong arguement to be made that, as a Neathborn Princess, she is the only member of the Royal Family who explicitly without the heavens' blessing. That would explain quite a few things indeed.

Her Royal Highness was born the very moment of the Fall - so she was born with heaven's blessing in the Neath.

Passionario wrote:
Fortunately, this election is not about the "choice of heavens", it's about the choice of PEOPLE.

Well, yeah. You argued she has no qualifications. I counter that as her Royal Highness was born into Britain's royal family and thus in the line of succession to one day reign over the entire Empire, she is certainly qualified to be Mayor of London. That's just common sense.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
+2 link
Sara Hysaro
Sara Hysaro
Moderator
Posts: 4514

6/29/2018
I, personally speaking, am quite interested to see just what the Captivating Princess will consider to be the purest expression of her inner self. That is the very heart of the art show - the grand unveiling of her true character to those who mistakenly believe they know her. That my hands are quite tied thanks to valuing Church and Master connections equally has nothing to do with it. Perish the thought!

It should prove quite interesting, no doubt. I shall bring snacks and pray I retain my appetite.

--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Sara%20Hysaro
Please do not send SMEN, cat boxes, or Affluent Reporter requests. All other social actions are welcome.

Are you a Scarlet Saint? Send a message my way to be added to the list.
+2 link
Lady Karnstein
Lady Karnstein
Posts: 384

6/29/2018
Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
Oh, I am disappointed in you, creampuff. What kind of Nocturnal are you who would condemn the inhuman, appeal to conventional moralities, and shame a kindhearted and formidable woman for placing her own compassion and sense of duty above the qualms of pedestrian society? You are very eager to bring judgement down on your foes. Have you truly been so quick to forget the cruelty of the surface? Or have you simply not witnessed it for yourself?


Do you know me? Because if you know me, you know precisely what sort of Nocturnal I am. And if you don’t, that’s fine. I don’t think I know who you are.

You use the descriptor “Kindhearted” therefore you are misinformed or you are deliberately obfuscating the truth. Can a truly kind person so hungrily consume Red Honey? I know the answer and so do you, but do you know me?

Do you know me? You mock me for compassion, and that tells me precisely what sort of people I am arguing against. How dare you show compassion says those who back the Princess! Is that what she stands for? Is that what Anne stands for?

Do you know me? Sense of duty? Those who I am trying to protect the Bohemian community from one who would tear down their homes and their studios in their own name, true, but I am a Bohemian, I seek freedom of art. A woman who would quash journalists and discard the opinions of artists is no friend to art herself. Do you care? Is it a sense of Duty that I defend art and artists? Vey well guilty then.

And what do you know of what I suffered on the surface? Do you know me?

No, no I do not think you do.


And all this cruel and senseless fear mongering! You might as well be writing sermons for the Bishop of Southwark! The Princess keeps her private predilections private. She's not going to walk about like a roaring lion seeking whom she may devour simply because she's got another title to add to her collection.


I do so wish I could. I would write a sermon people would be talking about for decades. Anyway

If the princess kept her peccadilloes to herself, if outsiders did not suffer, I would not care. But even I find I must care in the face of Red Honey.

Anne, is this the company you would keep now? Those who mock compassion, mock sense of duty? Do you, too, raise your fist against those who do not want people to suffer? Or do you stand against this person?

(OOC: Creampuff. Well played.)

--
Lady Caroline Karnstein, The Moral Hedonist (Description)
Infamous writer, artist, and courtesan. Unrepentant Invert. Hesperidean.
Paramount Presence, Correspondent, Nocturnal. Poet Laureate of the Neath, Ambassador to Arbor
+2 link
Akernis
Akernis
Posts: 266

6/28/2018
incerteza wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Fallen London is dreary, dismal, decrepit, and, altogether, not very nice to look at.
Are you sure the reason is, "London denied art" and not "London is damn poor and surrounded by assorted carnivores"?


Yeah, I bet both tax-payers and criminals would greatly appreciate the wonders of monumental architecture on Spite.

Exactly why an art contest sponsored by Her Royal Highness is such a tremendous idea, fewer of your precious tax-payer echoes will be 'wasted' on it and it will give artists an opportunity for showcase their work and gain new commissions, some even of royal degree, all paid for by the palace. And who knows, large building projects requires workers which would create new jobs and opportunities for the less fortunate.

The Princess' ideas may seem frivolous and shallow to those of a practical mindset, but it's the first step in an historically proven way to help a a poor nation get back on its feet and strive for something more than it is.

And quite frankly, yes, criminals and tax-payers are humans too (most of them anyway, do devils pay taxes?) I'm sure they wouldn't mind watching something to inspire wonder and pride.

I for one would rather see a London that is proud of its new heritage and aspiring to do better, rather than one drowning in its own melancholy and regret. And if splendorous new marvels for the city is the first step in that direction, then I will personally be happy to help.


incerteza wrote:
Maybe let's elect the Vake next year, it also needs a diversion from its human-hunting addiction.

[spoiler]What a silly proposition, why would we ever need to elect the Vake when it already sit in office full-time?[/spoiler]

--
Vena's profile - http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Akernis
+2 link
Diptych
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3882

6/30/2018
Ixc wrote:
And besides, she's the damn Princess. If she wants to host an art exhibition, why does she have to be voted in office to do it?



Because if she's voted into office, she can bypass permit applications and the public will pay for it all.

--
Diptych, the Emancipationist Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
+2 link
Gul al-Ahlaam
Gul al-Ahlaam
Posts: 238

6/30/2018
When the Eremite finishes speaking, Gul snickers so hard it almost sounds like it hurts.

  • I... are you joking? The election of the Lord mayor isn't some authentic London custom preserved in amber since the Fall. It was reintroduced by the Masters three years ago as a tool of social engineering. The Masters control the election at every stage, manage and censor the content of the campaigns, and decide which candidates are permitted to run and which are not. Ultimately the Lord mayor receives a little money for personal projects, and then steps down. It's a dollhouse democracy, a summer activity that the Masters have scheduled for us. Treating it like the last bastion of British culture isn't going to make it so, it's only buying into the fiction you claim to oppose. Anne has it right. The Princess is by her own word lacking for responsibility and intellectual stimulation. These sorts of things work havoc on a young person's development, and allowing her to participate in this activity, to take on a variety of responsibilities with minimal additional authority, ought to help.
    London belongs to the Masters now, but only by Her Majesty's authority, and only as the cost of a thoroughly understandable transaction. If for whatever reason you really do want to cling to your moth-eaten British identity, supporting the Princess is a far better choice than supporting a man who, whether he likes it or not, will ultimately bring about its destruction.

    --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
  • +2 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    7/1/2018
    Zack Oak wrote:
    Azothi wrote:
    I think Southwark represents the more conservative elements of the Church and, considering the people in the Fourth Coil, other traditional religious systems from the Surface: strong anti-Hell and anti-devil tendencies, a militant faith, and a focus on traditional values. St. Fiacres represents the more mystical elements of the Church revealed with the Fall: the nature of the Judgements and the Great Chain of Being, the Garden, eternal life, the nature of the soul (rather than Southwark's purist stance on keeping your soul), and so on.

    Also, I simply love how the nature of Fallen London lets us use the word disestablishmentarianism in its proper context.

    If you think the Bishop of Southwark is all for traditional values, you need to look closer at some of the things he's said. Especially in the wedding, where he has some very non-traditional advice with regards to how to keep a marriage strong. Regardless of how anyone feels about the man, that statement's not a fair one.

    Extremely passionate sex within marriage is pretty cool in a number of Christian denominations, particularly Protestant ones. Nothing non-traditional about that.

    What is interesting is that Reginald is the one giving the Princess advice in the first place. That's rather fatherly of him - literally, its usually the parents who provide that sort of advice. But then the Princess's actual father is a poorly animated corpse and her mother is a misanthropic shut-in who spends her free time fawning over said corpse...so the good Bishop probably figured that if anyone was going to give her the talk it would have to be him. Which is kind of sweet, when you think about it, but also a little sad.

    The Princess really didn't have the best childhood when it came to emotional support.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +2 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    7/2/2018
    Snowskeeper wrote:

    You're suggesting that putting a honey-addict in charge of the city would lower rates of honey addiction?

    I wasn't suggesting.

    Snowskeeper wrote:
    Reality will always be uglier than a honey dream; trying to match London to one only clarifies that.

    Who better to change that then someone who has delved deep into dreams and visions of great beauty?

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +2 link
    Snowskeeper
    Snowskeeper
    Posts: 575

    7/2/2018
    Snowskeeper wrote:
    Reality will always be uglier than a honey dream; trying to match London to one only clarifies that.

    Who better to change that then someone who has delved deep into dreams and visions of great beauty?



    Somebody with a firmer grasp on the distinction between dream and reality. Reality has its own beauty, and it is not found in dreams.

    --
    S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
    +2 link
    Jolanda Swan
    Jolanda Swan
    Posts: 1823

    7/2/2018
    There is a reason Poe was not made mayor of Baltimore. Or Baudelaire of Paris.
    And they were not even spoiled royals.

    --
    Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
    http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
    +2 link
    Ixc
    Ixc
    Posts: 439

    7/3/2018
    I thought the Baudelaires died in a house fire, leaving their penniless children to fend for themselves in adoption services?

    --
    Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
    Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.

    Being poked incessantly by nightmares? Poke them back!
    Vote the Viscountess for Mayor!
    +2 link
    Azothi
    Azothi
    Posts: 590

    7/3/2018
    Ixc wrote:
    I thought the Baudelaires died in a house fire, leaving their penniless children to fend for themselves in adoption services?
    Charles Baudelaire, the poet contemporary with Poe rather than the children who undergo a series of unfortunate events.

    Unless this is a joke, to which I say bravo.

    --
    Azoth I, the Emissary of Cardinals - A Paramount Presence (not currently accepting new Proteges)
    Away to where the Chain cannot bind us.
    Hesperidean.
    +2 link
    Lady Sapho Byron
    Lady Sapho Byron
    Posts: 806

    6/29/2018
    Anne Auclair wrote:

    [A]s royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.


    I claim no expertise in Christian thinking ... but this statement strikes me as possibly theologically unsound.

    Anne Auclair wrote:

    But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy


    and

    Anne Auclair wrote:

    Things can't get any more horrifying then they already are.


    Your imagination is somewhat lacking.
    edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 6/29/2018

    --
    http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
    Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
    +2 link
    incerteza
    incerteza
    Posts: 103

    6/29/2018
    Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
    I agree fully and enthusiastically! For the extraordinary wonders and delights our royal family has visited upon us, there is a surprising lack of gratitude.

    Especially for the impending wonders of a lacre flood and Paris drop.
    +2 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/29/2018
    Sir Frederick wrote:
    Anne Auclair wrote:

    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    Plus, you know, the serial killer and torturer thing. That too.

    Yes, and as we are all powerless to stop Her Royal Highness, we should all hope that she comes to eventually reconsider her behavior.

    Oh, god, that sounds like a line out of a story about domestic violence. That's genuinely a bit horrifying.

    Her murders and tortures are meant to be absolutely horrifying - they're never played for laughs or black comedy. Unlike, say, her occasional moments of childish pique (bulldoze Spite!) or out of touch ditziness (*blink blink* "But why?"), which are clearly meant to be funny.

    One of the scenes in the Shuttered Palace really sticks with me. It's a large meeting of everyone important in the royal court: the Duchess, his Amused Lordship, the Princess. Someone makes a mention of "the cages"...and everyone just starts nervously laughing and the conversation quickly moves on to other subjects. Everyone of importance and authority is fully aware of what is going on. The Commissioner of Police knows about it. His Lordship and the Duchess know about it. The Bishops of the Church know about it. The Empress knows about it. The Palace staff know about it. Mr. Huffam knows about it. The Princess's many doomed, idiot lovers know about it. And it will continue. It was actually far worse a few years ago, before the rest of the children became Monsters who hid in the dark. We literally have no control over it. At all.

    But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy, so we just have to hope that this changes, somehow. Maybe making London more aesthetically interesting will help that change take place. I literally cannot think of any other solution short of killing Her Royal Highness. So, I figure, let's give the arts festival a try. Things can't get any more horrifying then they already are.
    .
    edited by Anne Auclair on 6/29/2018

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +2 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/29/2018
    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    No, it is the opposite of common sense. She is indeed royalty and nobody is claiming she should be stripped of the title; however, same as her title does not entitle her to be a surgeon or a plough horse, mayor is equally beyond her.
    May I remind you, Lady Auclair, that London has a constitutional monarchy and that even the Empress is bound to the law. The Magna Carta was drawn for a reason.

    Oh, what's next? Arguing that a single, grieving, and possibly mentally disturbed lady can't sell an entire city to a collection of scheming bat merchants for the dubious resurrection of her dead husband because her authority is ultimately derived from something as arbitrary as birth? Well, that assertion would strike at the very heart of London's Royal Government. If Her Undying Majesty had the inherent authority to decide London's fate, then certainly her daughter is inherently qualified to be its municipal magistrate for a year. Again, common sense.

    Jolanda Swan wrote:
    Plus, you know, the serial killer and torturer thing. That too.

    Yes, and as we are all powerless to stop Her Royal Highness, we should all hope that she comes to eventually reconsider her behavior.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +2 link
    Dudebro Pyro
    Dudebro Pyro
    Posts: 765

    6/29/2018
    Anne Auclair wrote:

    Oh, what's next? Arguing that a single, grieving, and possibly mentally disturbed lady can't sell an entire city to a collection of scheming bat merchants for the dubious resurrection of her dead husband because her authority is ultimately derived from something as arbitrary as birth?

    But she can't.

    If Her Undying Majesty had the inherent authority to decide London's fate, then certainly her daughter is inherently qualified to be its municipal magistrate for a year. Again, common sense.

    She did it anyway because nobody could really have stopped her. Not because she was somehow "inherently qualified". The Princess can not only be stopped, but she won't get into office unless she is explicitly supported by the greatest fraction of voters - completely different circumstances to the Fall.


    I will repeat my opinion that selling out your city to space bats working for a space crab and then having most of your remaining family degenerate into inhuman things that you have to lock up in your basement tends to put a damper on the whole "divine mandate" thing.

    --
    Dudebro Pyro, eccentric scholar

    Spare Starveling Kitties always welcome. I collect them.
    For that matter, send me your unwanted cat boxes too.
    +2 link
    Ixc
    Ixc
    Posts: 439

    7/2/2018
    Well, I suppose all this argument has been proved moot...

    And d---, I am happy about it.

    --
    Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
    Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.

    Being poked incessantly by nightmares? Poke them back!
    Vote the Viscountess for Mayor!
    +2 link
    Snowskeeper
    Snowskeeper
    Posts: 575

    7/2/2018
    Anne Auclair wrote:
    Passionario wrote:
    No, we've capitalized on one.

    Dealing with rejection is hard for anyone, let alone someone who's gone for 34 years without ever hearing "no". It's going to be a long multi-step process, but I believe that the Princess will emerge from it as a better person.

    No she won't. She's just going to stew over it and like every sheltered, frustrated aristocrat learn nothing and forget nothing. London will pay the price in years to come.

    Also, people are going to keep abusing honey because the city is so dismal. A lose lose all around.
    .
    edited by Anne Auclair on 7/2/2018



    You're suggesting that putting a honey-addict in charge of the city would lower rates of honey addiction?

    Reality will always be uglier than a honey dream; trying to match London to one only clarifies that.

    --
    S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
    +1 link
    John Moose
    John Moose
    Posts: 276

    6/29/2018
    "Divine mandate" seems a bit of a silly basis for voting for someone here, considering any candidate could have the blessing and backing of a literal god by being carted to the southwest corner of the map and back.

    Also, surely there's such a thing in a monarchy as staying in your proper place? It'd be hardly fitting of a princess to bother herself with the duties of a mere public servant.
    +1 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/29/2018
    Dudebro Pyro wrote:
    Anne Auclair wrote:

    But rejecting the Monarchy means Anarchy

    My fingers will go hoarse if I have to remind people of the Third Way any more.

    The same Third Way currently being backed by the hardline Liberation supporter January?

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +1 link
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Posts: 238

    6/29/2018
    incerteza wrote:
    Gul al-Ahlaam wrote:
    incerteza wrote:
    specially for the impending wonders of a lacre flood and Paris drop.

    An easily avoidable impending doom is no doom at all. Most of the fourth city escaped, either across the zee or into Parabola, and the cities prior seem to have spread themselves through the 'Neath quite successfully. You'll be fine.

    Huh, cool, I didn't know the Fourth city escaped into Parabola. Do you maybe remember where it is mentioned?
    And I don't recall any survivors of the previous cities (besides the rulers and, I guess, Khante or how was it called). Do you maybe have more info on that?

    Sure! It's not really relevant to the thread, so I'll PM you later.


  • --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
  • +1 link
    Aberrant Eremite
    Aberrant Eremite
    Posts: 362

    6/29/2018
    Azothi wrote:
    Aberrant Eremite wrote:
    To be fair, though, both times this expression was followed by the rise of a revolutionary dictator and a subsequent restoration of the monarchy.


    You make excellent points, and I largely agree. But I'd point out that after the Restoration, the English people deposed the Stuarts a second time, and that when William and Mary accepted the Bill of Rights in 1689, England officially became a limited constitutional monarchy. Hence Locke, the Enlightenment, and modern political ideals. Over the next two centuries, the power of the monarch declined steadily. By the end of the 19th century, a comment like "Royalty? In government? We'd be the laughingstock of Europe!" is actually a pretty funny joke.

    --
    Hieronymus Drake: Gentleman scholar, big-game hunter, scar-faced aristocrat. Remarkably sane, all things considered.
    Tanith Wyrmwood: Longshanks cat-burglar; Bohemian author; now, perhaps, something more. Bubbly, expressive, and affectionate. It’s not only still waters that run deep.
    Telemachia Lee: Gentle lady by birth, brawling Docker by choice. Good company in the drunk tank.
    +1 link
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Posts: 238

    6/29/2018
    Anne Auclair wrote:
    She could and she did and it was the right decision for London. That she made it for seemingly selfish reasons is entirely relevant, as this was sacred bond between Her Undying Majesty and her subjects at work. Her Majesty brought her people down to a realm where death is weak and dreams are strong and where there are unimaginable treasures. And now her Neathborn daughter wants London to embrace this destiny with a tremendous show of artistic pride.

  • I agree fully and enthusiastically! For the extraordinary wonders and delights our royal family has visited upon us, there is a surprising lack of gratitude.

    --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
  • +1 link
    Azothi
    Azothi
    Posts: 590

    6/29/2018
    Aberrant Eremite wrote:
    Anne Auclair wrote:
    Anne would ... exclaim that as royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.


    Hieronymus Drake would argue that the people of London expressed their true opinion of the Divine Right of Kings in 1649. And, for that matter, that the people of Paris did so in 1793.
    To be fair, though, both times this expression was followed by the rise of a revolutionary dictator and a subsequent restoration of the monarchy. I can't fault the point, though. Strange creatures lying in the sky distributing crowns is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical celestial ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some heavenly creature supposedly placed a crown on your head. If I went around saying I was an Empress because some divine being gave me the right to rule, they'd put me away, or if I was in America, allow me to wander the streets issuing decrees for the public amusement.

    Looking at history, Hieronymus Drake raises a fine example of who all-too-much resembles a more austere and socially inept Captivating Princess: the late Charles I, a lover and patron of the arts with an extensive collection (more than the Captivating Princess can say, though I admit the Princess has the better policy of sharing it with the world than keeping it locked away in a palace), and a striking disregard for the boundaries of the monarchy outlined by the Magna Carta and English common law. It was Charles I who stormed into the House of Commons in violation of this unwritten constitution to arrest five members of Parliament for "high treason". It is possible to advocate the divine right of kings and still rule a stable and orderly realm. James I and VI accomplished this feat. Louis XIV of France accomplished this. The Princess may say art ennobles, but it is the rights guaranteed to the people and the mandate of the masses that ennobles our people, and the Princess like Charles I before her fails to grasp this.

    Unless, of course, she wins with a majority, at which point she does derive power from the masses, but still holds herself above the law, the same attitude that helped Charles I lose his head.

    --
    Azoth I, the Emissary of Cardinals - A Paramount Presence (not currently accepting new Proteges)
    Away to where the Chain cannot bind us.
    Hesperidean.
    +1 link
    Frederick Metzengerstein
    Frederick Metzengerstein
    Posts: 69

    7/1/2018
    Aberrant Eremite wrote:
    That's because London is really ruled by the Masters, and we all know it.
    That's why I'm voting for the Contrarian, even if his platform is new. The Masters are the first enemy and the only one that counts. London will never be great until the Bazaar is a crater.
    +1 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/30/2018
    btw, an interesting side detail, but the Empress is an important part of the Church for Southwark's faction. This might explain why Southwark seems to be a regular at the Shuttered Palace, despite his gruff personality (he's present at the opera mocking the Church, the Princess apparently likes to troll him quite a bit, etc.). You'd think the smooth and stylish Bishop of St. Fiacre would be more at home at court, but apparently he has disestablishmentarianist sympathies, no doubt owing to his foreign background and overzees interests.

    "God Save the Queen" wrote:
    It is not easy to convince Southwark to join St Fiacre's for tea. It takes the combined efforts of several clergy wielding both prayers and bribes. The two men finally come face to face. Their squabble began with a dispute about the place of the Queen as head of the Church. It continues now. "She is not the highest power," the Bishop of St Fiacre's reminds his counterpoint. "Nor is that the point," responds Southwark.

    The Church is very complicated. Which reminds me, when you visit the Mirror Marches and peer into the Churches, you see intense plotting, whereas when you spy through the Brass Embassy's mirror, you just see the Devils taking tea :P A total reversal of what you'd expect.

    Anyway, my point - God Save Her Undying Majesty and God Save the Greatest of Her Children, the essential institutional protectors of Order, Religion, and Family. Thee end.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +1 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/30/2018
    The Captivating Princess wrote:
    "Honestly? I'm entirely bored. I am either fawned on or feared, or – worst of all – pawed at by the infatuated. Everyone believes they know me, because of my family."

    I'm going to cite this as evidence of my theory that the Princess's appetites are fundamentally driven by a boring and inactive existence where, in her own mind, she has nothing better to do then pluck the wings off flies. Idle hands are the devil's playground, as they say. Everyone either gives her everything she wants, is mortally afraid of her, or wants to sleep with her. And she's kinda sick of it and wants to do something real, which suggests some capacity for personal growth.

    We're entirely stuck with her you know. Whatever happens, she's going to be London's only remaining human shaped Royal Princess, which means she's going to be very important for years to come and Empress or Regent or defacto Ruler at some point. It seems a very questionable judgment to write her off as wholly depraved and beyond reforming, because she's not going anywhere.

    So, let's just give her something to do and see if that makes things better. The opposition enjoy their vague warnings about how we shouldn't give her power over us - she already has power! Lots of it, without any responsibility. So, let's give her some responsibility for a change - a job where she has to work and deal with difficulties and do stuff that isn't fun and accept limitations. In short, let's make her Mayor of London, which is by all accounts a hard and unrewarding job with more expectations then actual power, and help her hold her public art's festival, which is a legitimately good idea and something the Mayor's office would be perfect for.

    This seems a much better idea then voting for Slowcake's surveillance state or the Contrarian's plans to actively sabotage the city's police force.

    Hattington wrote:
    For what it's worth, as I said in another thread she is genuinely angry and disappointed in one particular admiral's inability to reign in the Navy's work on/with/for the Dawn Machine.

    I think this is less she care's about London and more that the Admiralty mothballing the fleet in order to build a giant clockwork sun means she can't plunder far off lands and acquire all the treasures she's seen in her dreams. Though it's a good example about how when her personal desires intersect with a need for a functioning state, she's a powerful champion of British interests. Which is kind of Monarchy in a nutshell - the ruler treating the nation as their personal property and consequently trying to increase its value out of self-interest.

    Lady Karnstein wrote:
    Then by means do so. Caroline would be eager to answer. She would likely point out how that sort of thing ended for Napolean III. And ask again, and again, and again why she is downplaying Red Honey and it's effects and what it could mean to have such a person in power. She would hammer the points Anne is deliberately ignoring, and what it might imply about how she really feels about the downtrodden that she is doing so. Whenever you want to type it. I am not going to respond to a sweeping and vague OOC post with specific IC points.
    edited by Lady Karnstein on 6/30/2018

    We should probably discuss things over dinner.
    edited by Anne Auclair on 7/1/2018

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +1 link
    Lady Sapho Byron
    Lady Sapho Byron
    Posts: 806

    6/29/2018
    Anne Auclair wrote:

    [A]s royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.

    Lady Sapho Byron wrote:

    I claim no expertise in Christian thinking ... but this statement strikes me as possibly theologically unsound.

    Anne Auclair wrote:

    It isn't, actually. One might call it outdated or controversial or just plain wrong, but it has a pretty strong theological and traditional foundation.


    The Devils are in the details. So to speak.

    The Divine Right of Kings, as I understand it, applies to monarchs ... not to their non-ruling offspring. One might even speculate that the Empress' life expectancy is a ... ahem ... judgement on the Princess' fitness to rule.

    I also suggest that no major theological position has advocated for the existence of two moral standards, viz., one for monarchs and one for ordinary mortals. Ordinary mortals may not be able to judge monarchs, but that which does judge uses but one measure.

  • edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 6/29/2018

    --
    http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
    Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
    +1 link
    incerteza
    incerteza
    Posts: 103

    6/28/2018
    Akernis wrote:
    all paid for by the palace.
    And the palace gathers money out of thin air, and pouring these money into the city's economy would not cause a devaluation?
    it's the first step in an historically proven way to help a a poor nation get back on its feet.
    Honestly, I'm awful at history. I work with statistics, though, and cannot it be that the cause and effect are switched here? That once a nation actually gets enough resources to get back on its feet, it can start investing into art?
    +1 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/28/2018
    Lady Sapho Byron wrote:
    Supporting the Captivating Princess to advance Temperance is like going to the Cave of the Nadir to improve one's memory.

    Forgetting something you'd rather not know can count as an improvement.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +1 link
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Gul al-Ahlaam
    Posts: 238

    6/28/2018
    Perhaps you ought to be more careful what you say about the beloved Princess, sweet things. If you're really so appalled by a little honey-sipping and some peculiarities of diet, it stands to reason you'd be far keener to avoid the edge of her carving knife. But perhaps that's your problem, yes? You're drawn in by the luscious possibilities she presents, the midnight liberties she embodies, but your own cowardice holds you back, and you resent her for taking the leap that you cannot. Perhaps. But know this: Her artistic transformation of London will bring more wealth to the people than any charity ever could. Wealth measured in self-knowledge, in redemptive transformation, in the enlightenment that flits at the ragged edges of desire, and in tear-stained tatters of still-living flesh. To offer this shows wisdom and compassion beyond the capacity of ordinary Londoners. To offer anything less only demonstrates the shallowness of your love.


  • --
    The Uncanny Hierophant.
    The Jewel-Eyed Prince.
  • +1 link
    Jolanda Swan
    Jolanda Swan
    Posts: 1823

    6/29/2018
    No, it is the opposite of common sense. She is indeed royalty and nobody is claiming she should be stripped of the title; however, same as her title does not entitle her to be a surgeon or a plough horse, mayor is equally beyond her.
    May I remind you, Lady Auclair, that London has a constitutional monarchy and that even the Empress is bound to the law. The Magna Carta was drawn for a reason.
    Plus, you know, the serial killer and torturer thing. That too.
    edited by Jolanda Swan on 6/29/2018

    --
    Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
    http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
    +1 link
    Anne Auclair
    Anne Auclair
    Posts: 2221

    6/29/2018
    Lady Karnstein wrote:
    And I would ask Anne, who is known for her strong morals, to ask herself why she now backs one guilty of the things that Princess has done, the one would leave people homeless. We have never seen eye to eye, but I have always held a certain respect for her as a woman of character. What has happened to change her in the past year, I do not know, but I would ask her to pull herself together and think of what she once stood for.

    Anne would no doubt assert her sincere belief in the power of grandeur to transform a people, harking back to the Emperors Napoleon I and III (she's French, after all). She'd list in exacting detail the improvements in sanitation, morality, beauty, security, and order achieved by the renovation of Paris, now the greatest city in the world. She'd repeat her belief that beautifying London would reduce its social problems by luring people away from prisoners honey and renovating decaying neighborhoods. She would also express her faith in the Royal Family and the alliance of Throne and Altar as essential to London's continued preservation from the chaos of the Neath and the dangers of Revolution. And she'd exclaim that as royalty the Princess possesses an invisible divine authority that places her above ordinary human morality - only god can truly judge her conduct.

    --
    http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
    +1 link




    Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.0.2.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software