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.

Results of the first round :

Name	Percentage
niketas_skleros	40.51 %
caitilin	33.62 %
merlyna	25.88 %

niketas_skleros and caitilin advance to the second round.

Kingdoms Associated Press - London, England


England does not lack for candidates. What it faces instead is a quieter and more consequential question: what kind of monarchy should guide the realm next?

The current race offers voters three distinct philosophies of rule. Not louder. Not sharper. Distinct. Each candidate speaks to a different anxiety in the kingdom, whether it be legality, reconciliation, or security. Below is a closer look at how those visions take shape.

Caitilin de Lusignon


Caitilin lives in Sussex. She is an Admiral of the Royal English Navy as well as a member of the College of Heraldry. She presents herself not as a reformer in search of a cause but as a steward in search of balance.

Her central argument is simple, the Crown is not an owner of power or wealth, but its caretaker. She does not promise sweeping perfection. She promises service, responsible management of resources, and governance shaped by experienced advisors who will challenge her when she is wrong.

Her approach to law is deliberate. She would rely heavily on Privy Council review before issuing decrees and has stated plainly that unlawful decrees should be corrected or withdrawn. On the role of Parliament, she favours partnership rather than dominance. Questions about national courts, in her view, belong to parliamentary determination.

On the question of titles and standing, she opposes the use of peerage as punishment. She has also said that she is willing to reassess those stripped of standing, which was under questionable legality. If elected, she seeks dialogue to restore trust among peers. Regarding the ongoing tension between the College of Heraldry and the Order of Lands and Arms, she advocates negotiated coexistence. OLA titles without an oath to the England and its crown, would not carry peer rights, but she rejects punitive action against individuals for using one system over the other.

Her naval background seems to shape her defence priorities. She supports strengthened patrols, training, and ship replacement, alongside tightly controlled domestic privateers. Foreign privateers receive far less enthusiasm.

In foreign diplomacy, she favours practical and reciprocal alliances. She hopes to maintain stability with France while supporting Brittany’s independence. She wants to engage constructively with SRING, and possibly renew ties with Ireland and parts of Scotland.

If elected, her early reign would focus on meeting institutional leaders and assessing conditions before announcing major reforms.

If elected, her early reign would focus on meeting institutional leaders and assessing conditions before announcing major reforms.

---

Merlyna



Merlyna lives in Mercia. She has said her career spans religious service, military command, civic leadership, and work under multiple monarchs in England and Scotland. Her campaign centres on repair over revenge. She has made clear that the cycles of title conflict and prosecutions have weakened the realm and must be cooled before stability can truly return.

She strongly supports restoring good standing and reviewing past attainders. She favours ending prosecutions tied to the Order of Lands and Arms and allowing free use of either heraldic system. At the same time, she maintains a firm 'use it or lose it' view toward inactive title holders of the pool of titles and lands the English crown owns.

She envisions a visible monarchy. Should she win, early in her reign, she would travel throughout the kingdom before settling into a London base. Festivals, tourneys, and public events feature prominently in her vision as tools of morale and unity.

On the treasury, she supports transparency and continued subsidies to counties. On the Military front, she favours naval continuity and defence but expresses caution toward privateering, particularly with foreign entities being involved.

Her foreign affairs opinion leans openly toward France. She appears to show pronounced dislike toward O.N.E. She had expressed scepticism about how functional Parliament or national courts may prove in practice.

Her candidacy rests less on structure and more on trust, forgiveness, and visible leadership.

---

Niketas Skleros


Niketas entered England’s public life more recently than his competitors in 1473. He has stated he was an exiled noble with military and administrative experience. He has served in civic roles (mayor of Lichfield for eight terms and Mercia council for one term).

He presents himself as a restrained, but process oriented candidate. In debates, he frequently speaks about what a monarch should not do, emphasizing consultation, law, and institutional guardrails.

Niketas answers consistently return to procedure, meetings, legal review, and structural safeguards. He positions himself as opposed to authoritarian extremes.

However, beneath that measured tone lies a consistent emphasis on readiness. He speaks many times of military preparedness and potential conflict. This suggests he views the external environment as uncertain and possibly dangerous.

Some observers note his caution on controversial domestic disputes, where he often defers or avoids firm commitments. He has also acknowledged not having a fully formed privy structure, which some might interpret as independence from entrenched factions and others as a lack of preparation.

His vision of monarchy resembles a coordinating commander.

---

The choice before England is not merely about the preference of personality. It is about priority. Does the kingdom most need structural integrity, repair, or vigilance? Watch the Monarch Debate Stage for your informed choice.

---

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.