Kingdoms Associated Press - London, England


The first round of the monarch election has narrowed the field and sharpened the questions.

KAP Record

In the first exchange of this round, Candidate Caitilin was asked what steps she would take to attract the twenty five percent of voters previously aligned with Merlyna.

Her response was direct. She stated that if her prior debate answers and public positions have not persuaded those voters, she does not intend to alter her message in pursuit of them. She reiterated that she will not appoint individuals to her Privy Council who seek special privileges from the Crown, nor those who have previously rebelled against the Crown or the Counties. She referenced an offer extended to Wessex for a Privy seat, noting that he withdrew following a debate exchange. She characterised that withdrawal as an unwillingness to work for England as a whole.

Caitilin emphasised that she does not make private deals or time-limited promises. She maintained that her experience within England should speak for itself and concluded that voters will decide accordingly.

In a separate line of questioning, Candidate Niketas Skleros was asked how a man with limited visible presence across the realm’s public chambers came to receive forty percent of the vote in the first round.

Niketas attributed his support to two primary factors. First, his publicly named Privy list (which he did not have when he started, got a list together and changed it recently), includes multiple former Counts and long-serving officeholders across Sussex, Devon, Westmorland and, prospectively, Mercia. Second, his debate performance and policy positions, which he believes resonated with voters.

When asked directly whether endorsements, coordinated outreach, or private agreements contributed to the result, he denied any such arrangements. He stated that he requested only that his prospective Privy members stand ready to serve if he wins, not that they deliver votes on his behalf. He further stated that he did not request organised campaigning from them, nor was he informed of any.

Niketas described his knowledge of established figures and their reputations as the product of attentive observation, reading, and keeping informed beyond his immediate region. He rejected the premise that organised “stirring” was necessary to explain his support, framing the result instead as a natural outcome of debate exposure and public trust in familiar names associated with his platform.

For the record, his position is that there was no coordinated effort, no private agreements, and no directed endorsements. That the support arose from debate performance and public confidence in those who chose to stand beside him.

These statements are recorded precisely as given.

The second round now leaves voters with two distinct approaches. One candidate is declining to recalibrate her message for specific blocs. The other asserts that substantial early support formed without orchestration. If you appreciate straight lines, you will have to see how straight this one feels.

---

Kallist0
England KAP
Editor-in-Chief

The opinions expressed by individuals are their own and do not represent the views of KAP or the reporter.
For responses to any KAP article and to review the International rules of KAP, visit The International KAP offices.