Minister of State:
It seems that you would consider disagreeing with a minister the same
as disagreeing with the King. That is a rather grandious statement. The
King has appointed you Minister of State. Note however, that our sovereign
appoints the Minister of War and the Foreign Minister. If indeed the his
majesty, the source and strength of the grandeur of France, wished you to
speak with his full authority, then he presumably would have given you the
authority to appoint those Minister.
It therefore seems that while you are free to discuss military matters
with the Minister of War, you are not free to give him orders. It would
seem unlikely that you speak with the voice of the King in all Military
matters.
I am certainly not privy to the King's thoughts or voice, but as a
citizen in service to our royal monarch I am obliged to do my best to act
as I understand his wishes. [OOC: Of course, if the GM chooses to write a
proclamation from the palace, then from that time onward we would all be
bound by it. But that has not happened, and I do not expect it to.]
Yours,
Lt. General le Baron Soire de Success
At 09:21 PM 3/23/01 -0500, George W. Harris wrote:
> Brevet Lt General Marquis Rougeur Homard
> Second Division
>
> Let me strongly urge you to caution in making statements
> regarding the extent of powers exercised by the office of Minister of
> State. This office is the primary agent for the exercise of His
> Majesty's will, and as such attempting to place limits on its reach is
> tantamount to denying His Majesty's authority. You would do well to
> review the notice published by the Commissioner of Public Safety
> regarding the charges brought against Marquis de Mylcandonai, with
> special attention paid to the second charge.
>
> The office of Minister of State will not be hamstrung by the
> posturing of self-important fools, and those who deny the authority of
> the office deny the authority of His Majesty, and will be dealt with
> accordingly.
>
>
>--
>Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
>
>George W. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
