Jump to content

Aulic Court Review: On the Nobility's Right to Personal Guards


garentoft
 Share

Recommended Posts

AULIC COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF HANSETI-RUSKA

 

REVIEW ON THE NOBILITY'S RIGHT TO PERSONAL GUARDS

 

 

6BiiqrNFks7XsWPlumnb2DcY_MkWqPZoZFbaBkYZa5nh9g5IYqVes0-Tb3XGJhscTNyDD6beIUsIwaUdkmEaFiFfLB6VFdGHsHVf35s9ZGtDOOELdqS9LnZoskpMXYe4siWBBKDu

 

4th of Jula and Piov, 367 ES

 


 

Jovenaars

Ms. Reza B. Gynsburg

Mr. Lukas Rakoczy

Lady Erika L. Kortrevich

Mr. Lauritz F. Jensen

Lady Annika A. Vyronov

 

MAJORITY: Jensen, joined by Rakoczy and Kortevich

CONCURRENCE: Gynsburg, Vyronov

DISSENT: N/A

 

Exposition

Lord Harren A. Ruthern, on behalf of the Margrave of Greyspine, saw fit to refer the Aulic Court to review the Rights of the Nobility, specifically the section regarding the Nobility’s Right to maintain a personal guard of two armsmen:

 

      603.07: A Haeseni Peer and their noble kin shall be entitled to retain two armsmen as personal guards;

 

In particular, Lord Ruthern is referring to the usage of the word armsmen, which could be taken as a general term for a household guard, or as the rank of Armsman within the Haeseni Royal Army. Secondarily, Lord Ruthern inquires as to whether every individual that is considered a Haeseni Peer’s noble kin is entitled to two guards, or whether it is the Haeseni Peer’s noble kin as a whole that is entitled to two.

 

Jovenaar Lauritz F. Jensen delivered the opinion of the court;

While Section 603.07 of the Haurul Caezk does indeed refer to the term “armsmen”, no prior references to the Haeseni Royal Army exist in the Haurul Caezk, and it can therefore be assumed that the terms “armsmen” does not refer to the rank of Armsman, as such term is omitted from the lawcode as a whole. Additionally, Section 603.08 of the Haurul Caezk states: “A Haeseni Peer and their noble kin shall be entitled to request an armed escort from the Haeseni Royal Army to ensure safe travel.”, in contrast to 603.07, this section in particularly refers to the Haeseni Royal Army, which makes it further evident that the term “armsmen” does not refer to the rank within the Haeseni Royal Army, for otherwise such would have been explicitly stated within the Haurul Caezk.

 

Jovenaar Reza B. Gynsburg in concurrence;

The rights of nobility enumerated in the Haurul Caezk reserve their right to maintain two armed guardsmen. The term must be understood loosely, due to the conflict of jurisdiction between the nobility, the Office of the Marshal, and the sole authority of the Crown to govern the actions of the military. It is my opinion, then, that “armsmen” refers to an independent force hired at the discretion of the noble family to protect them. The term “armsmen” is such to permit them to carry weapons for the sole purpose of protecting the family under contract. It would be unconstitutional for a noble family to employ those ranked as “armsman” in the Haeseni Royal Army (HRA) because it violates the sovereign’s sole executive authority over the military. This would also violate current conventions that disqualify anyone sworn in the HRA to be recruited to other militant entities.

 

Jovenaar Annika A. Vyronov in concurrence;

While it is unanimously agreed by this Court that the terms “armsmen” simply refers to a personal household guard, and not the rank within the Haeseni Royal Army, it must be stressed that each individual Haeseni Peer and their kin as a whole are entitled to two of these personal guards. If it were to be two individually, this would practically be a breach of Section 217.02, which states: “No other organized military, militia or levy may be formed without the consent of the Crown.”, and additionally it would create an inequality and imbalance between the Haeseni Peers of the Realm, allowing these with larger households to maintain larger guards.

 

It is so ordered.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...