The Emperor was elected by the Senate to rule the Galaxy. He has legitimacy by virtue of this that no Unelected monarch has. There is a difference between "Rex" (King) and "Imperator" (Emperor) in that the Emperor is an appointed position, not one where he inherited the title through a patrilineal line not based on merit.

It is a simple fact that autocratic rule is a necessity in order to maintain a safe and stable Empire and secure the people, as such the Emperor is the best individual to govern the galaxy in a manner not mired with bureaucracy.

Equally, the Emperor has proven himself the best individual for the job of galactic governance through his excellent handling of the clone wars and streamlining of all branches of Government.

Now, you have admitted to a difference regarding directly elected monarchs, i.e. Naboo, and proposed an amendment to your legislation regarding this fact. What of monarchs that, like our Emperor, are ultimately chosen by their legislature?

The Emperor: Democratically appointed autocrat deriving authority from the Senate and People of the Empire.

A Monarch (for the purpose of this bill): is a planetary ruler or head of state (in whom is often vested notional planetary sovereignty) who's source of authority stems from accident of birth or acclaim by an unrepresentative elite group, a monarch may have considerable power but cannot be an autocrat as this implies absolute power which is only vested in the Emperor himself.

As you can see they are quite distinct positions. While a monarch may or may not also have a powerful role under present laws, the galaxy has room for only one Sovereign, that is the Emperor.

An elected planetary ruler rules only by the consent of the Emperor, and it is inappropriate they should ape his Imperial Majesty by assuming an royal titles unless directly approved by his majesty, this should apply especially to absolute rulers.

No leader, unless he or she is a pure figurehead, should bear a monarchical title unless granted it by the Empire. Certainly no one should ever attempt to bear a title such as "Emperor" without direct permission from his majesty.

If this legislation is to be applied to a monarchs, should it also be applied to nobles? Nobility is a typical aspect of monarchies, and if we are to discourage a monarchy style of government, shouldn't the enablers of the monarchy be eliminated too?

Equally, in many other societies members of the nobility play an important societal role. Deralia, for example, disestablished it's monarchy some time ago, but few in it's nobility have sought to enable a new king. If nobles do seek to usurp the Emperor's sovereignty, they should be punished as any other would be.

I have no issues with titles being held, only when powers are held that are in conflict with the basic principles of the Empire.

Commenor feels this bill would be in the best interests of the Empire as a whole, solidifying the popular will and rooting out any potential claimants to Emperor Palpatine's throne. This bill is a reminder that the Emperor's power derives not from birth, but from merit and the consensus of the Senate. There are also some positive revenue-making aspects of this bill that are favorable, namely, the confiscation of excessive kingly accouterments for the benefit of the Imperial treasury. Commenor votes in favor of this act.

Monarchy contradicts democracy
In a unelected, strictly hereditary monarchy, yes... it indeed does. However, so does the noble system. Nobles are NOT selected by the people, thus are not democratic.

A monarchy demands deference
A valid point, however so does the noble system in the same way.

Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability
In some governments, yes. However, nobles also have the same quality.

Monarchy makes a world appear 'backwards'
In some circles, perhaps. However, the nobility is in the same category. It is archaic, as old as the monarchy itself in some instances, and it is, usually, stuck in its rigid and conservative place.

My point is, which, yes, I have been long-winded about, is that a similar argument could be made against the nobility of several worlds. I would almost go as far as to challenge the concept of an elected nobility, as it defies the idea of the system. Nobility is a state-privileged, and usually hereditary, status. Not an elected one. I do not mean to put Vjun on trial here, and I personally believe it is within the scope of each world to govern itself, but for all this parading of democracy you do, Senator Oriel, you seem to be part of one of the most undemocratic governments in the Empire. There is more democracy in action on worlds like Naboo, Garos IV, Anobis, and Deralia, targets of this bill, than on Vjun. There also seems to be more progression on countless other worlds than on Vjun. Practice what you preach Senator, and right now, concerning matters of government, I do not feel Vjun has a high level of standing on this, especially with your platform and reasoning. If you want change, Senator, lead by example, not by mere rhetoric.

To me, from a legal standpoint, this bill is unable to stand up. In general, despite any views for or against, monarchies do not present a clear and present danger to the Empire and the Emperor's rule. A monarch disobeying direct Imperial rule, as was the case on Naboo a couple of years ago, is. I feel that this is something that should be handled in a case by case basis, and only on the authority of the Emperor. It is the way we have handled monarchies thus far, and it has worked thus far, and there is no reason to change that at this time. Thus, I must vote Against this legislation.

Id like to thank you for your salvo of un called for attacks upon myself. On Vjun nobles inherit their titles from Their predecessors, or may be granted them by the Vjunite Government, similarly to the situation on nearly all worlds with nobilities. The nobles on Vjun do hold a large measure of influence and wealth, however this is by no means exclusively held by the nobility. Nobles hold very little power, if any, by simple virtue of their titles and their wealth and abilities have a far larger role on determining their position within Vjun society. My aide for example is a member of the Nobility, one Charles Ulysses Newton Thomas, Baron of Astarac, Semmeu, Telaria, Allerio, Rigeauberg and Dunkeep.. But he has no tenants, has sold most of the land in his fiefs and while he is the possessor of grand titles he has only been able to find gainful e,ployment by becoming an exceptionally skilled lawyer, rather than being able to live off his rents. Almost half the parliament comes from the hearty and Yale freemen of Vjun, and many senior freemen are far more wealthy than most nobles.

The Parliament is, yes, elected by those who are eligible to do so. I do not see a problem with an elected legislature? One cannot be directly elected into the nobility in some hideous "vote yourself rich" scheme as Senator Veritas implies.