The Firm

He’s getting hitched in a few hours. And I’m supposed to be excited.

I’ve tried, really I have. But I just can’t. And I’d prefer to leave well enough alone, except… unless there are major constitutional changes, he’s going to become my King. And I’m going to be his subject.

It’s not his fault. He was born to this, trapped in his little golden cage. As was his over-bred father. His grandmother, the current CEO, wasn’t born to it—it was dropped on her father’s head when she was just ten years old, as a result of her uncle’s playboy ways and eminent unsuitability to the rôle. Her father, who also considered himself unsuitable and (now famously) overcame a debilitating stutter to lead his nation through the Second World War, didn’t want the job. She has held the position now for nearly sixty years, and if her own mother’s extreme longevity is any guide, will probably continue to do so for another fifteen years or so, achieving Britain’s first seventy-year reign.

To be fair, there have always been valid arguments supporting the current constitutional monarchy. In placing ultimate power beyond the reach of personal ambition, while strictly circumscribing the direct authority of the sovereign, a system of checks and balances is created which parallels the republican congressional model of the United States. As sovereign not only of the United Kingdom and its colonies, but of sixteen nations including my own, the British monarchy and the Westminster System of government have given stability to governments across the world for over a century.

Yet much of it remains an anachronism that would not be tolerated in any other area of public life. Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, the monarch is the titular head of the Church of England, and may marry a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Methodist, an Atheist, even a Warmist—but not a Catholic. Anyone in the line of succession to the throne in so marrying, removes themselves from it.

Then there is the issue of male primogeniture. That a younger brother has not leapfrogged an older sister to the throne is an accident of history that circumstances have not yet called into question; however, if (soon to become) Princess Catherine bears a daughter and then a son, it will precipitate an impossible constitutional dilemma. There is almost unanimous public agreement in Britain that the eldest child of William and Catherine, whether male or female, should inherit the throne. However, under the 1931 Statute of Westminster, the line of succession can only be altered with the passage of parallel legislation through the parliaments of all sixteen nations of which the Queen is the sovereign (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, as well as the United Kingdom)—a nearly impossible task to achieve, given the likely imminence of the issue. Already, Australian and Canadian parliamentarians have publicly indicated there are more pressing local issues to fill their busy legislative schedules, not to mention the fact that the issue is certain to be seized upon by parliamentary Republicans. And so that particular gender inequity is set to remain for another generation.

Upper class twit, prototypical warmist... and my next King

Should William produce no heir, the throne will pass from him to his younger brother Henry (Harry). The elephant in his particular room is the issue of his paternity. Although according to most accounts, Princess Diana did not commence her affair with Major James Hewitt of the Royal Household Cavalry until a year after Harry was born, they could well have been lying. And there are reports of letters between Diana and Hewitt which mention Harry but not William. Would the British public accept Harry as their King? I have the feeling if William does die childless, Harry’s DNA test will make Obama’s birth certificate look like a non-issue.

Work it out for yourself.

Personally, I wish the newly-wed couple well. I have nothing whatsoever against William, who seems a perfectly nice, well-adjusted young man with a genuine sense of duty to the position in which he has found himself. Catherine too, seems a delightful and sensible young woman, with the maturity in which her late mother-in-law was so singularly lacking. For that matter, I have nothing against Harry either, who seems a fine lad and whose circumstances are absolutely no fault of his own. It’s just that I believe that my nation has come of age, and can be trusted to choose one of its own as its de jure, as well as de facto head of state.

This entry was posted in Australia, Commonwealth of Nations, UK. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Firm

  1. farmerbraun says:

    Well of course you are right Oz; Australia and N.Z. citizens are perfectly capable of choosing the respective heads of their nations, but that opportunity will never arise if our politicians have anything whatsoever to do with it. The only way it could be achieved is if the Monarch would deign to prescribe the common process under which the transition would be regulated in every affected nation. That would only happen if the monarch (assuming the monarch continues to care) determined that all nations so affected were ready for the resulting outcome. That doesn’t seem to be the case at present.

  2. toad says:

    At least Harry has inherited a slightly fuller head of hair, from whoever !
    One can only hope that her Maj hangs on long enough for her idiot eldest son to be bypassed.

  3. toad says:

    If I thought the other option might have been ‘President Brown’, I suddenly become very attached to the current system .
    Can’t help appreciating real ‘toffs’ behaving like toffs, so why does ‘Sam Cam’ have to be virtually the only one not to wear a hat. I think this woman’s extreme ‘green’ views have a lot to do with ‘Dave’ trying to inflict the ‘Greenest Government Ever’ on us.

  4. fenbeagle says:

    The issue for me is very simple. I think the head of state should be elected democratically.
    ….I am also certain, if it was put to the vote here in Britain, the monarchy (particularly the current queen) would win the contest hands down, against any runner.
    So that’s that……No need for Cromwell here at the moment…….How’s things out in far off foreign lands?

  5. Dr. Dave says:

    Rather a nasty bit of luck for ol’ Prince Chuck. It seems likely that he shall be King one day but not likely destined for a long reign. I always wondered how you folks in the colonies felt about your royal monarchy.

  6. rogercuul says:

    I spent the morning in my summer shed with my DT.
    What struck me was the silence as people, presumably, watched their televisions.
    The snippets I saw showed impressive and enthusiastic crowds.
    I am a Royalist and find it heartening that, with all of the people we hear slating the Monarchy, the general public respond so well.
    Times are changing and I think attitudes may alter when the Queen passes on especially in the colonies.

  7. Luton Ian says:

    I’ve very mixed opinions on this one.

    With a job description which consists of smiling, waving and reading speeches that the elected politicians, and unelected bureaucrats have either written, or okayed first, it isn’t difficult to be popular.

    The Irish President has a very similar job description, and with the exception of Dev, who is something of a hate figure to many outside the faithful of the church of Fianne Fail, Irish Presidents have generally been universally popular.

    Thinking of a President Thatcher, Major, Blair or that Scots Git. Or come to that, Louis XIV, er sorry, I meant al Buraq Hussein, the magical ass, tempers my dislike of un elected hereditary heads of state.

    Mrs Ian, dislikes Lizzy II, mostly because of the reserve, formality and the apparent coldness of the public persona.

    I can only guess the effort it took for her to get through meetings with her various Prime Ministers without slapping them, she’s one person who has the strength to do it.

    In contrast, I don’t think Charlie boy is suitable for the job for exactly the opposite reasons; He cares, he’s a sensitive soul, and he has views which he states.

    He probably wants to “make a difference” and my guess is he would do it in all of the wrong ways and for all of the best possible reasons. Like his late wife did.

    She who had a tax payer funded 24 hour armed bodyguard, and wanted handguns taken from the peasants, spoilt bitch!

    I don’t know much at all about the kids, or about Kate. I’m told that the younger one is a bit hot headed, and James Hewitt was reckoned to have a bit of a temper too. Older one seems like a decent junior army officer should be, and his new missus, like a good young officer’s wife, much better head of state material than his dad or his uncles. His Auntie Anne, now, she is made of better stuff!

    Like you Oz, I would morally prefer a directly elected head of state, and with strictly limited powers. Presidential edict and state of emergency powers, have’ I think proven to be too dangerous in the form which the US presidency uses them, yet we do need some form of first estate to act as a check on the powers which politicians and bureaucrats want to usurp from us.

    The danger appears to be, that with all, their personal interests soon diverge from the interests of the electorate. Statism and corporatism are just too bloody corrupting and attractive to them.

    I’ll wish the couple good luck, while observing that the first day and last day of a marriage (just like with a job) are usually happy, the bit in between, often a bit less so. She’s taken on a marriage and a 24/7/365 job, I hope she’s ready for it!

    there’s an interesting article about communicating libertarian ideas to lefties here:

    Brilliant article Ian (with the two somewhat irritating exceptions of Long’s persistent use of left-right rhetoric, and conflation of “conservative” with “right-wing”) – nonetheless, I recommend it to everyone here – Oz

  8. fenbeagle says:

    Being overly interested in visual things (and therefore extremely shallow)…Is there any nation on earth, that could put on a better visual display, at a wedding?

    …Do heads of state, have any other function?

  9. Dr. Dave says:


    I’ll give you the wedding thing. Y’all do it up big. What amazes me is that so many people actually care about it. I vaguely remember Prince Chuck’s wedding in 1981. I was fresh out of school. I was astounded at all the media attention given to the event. In subsequent years I was baffled at all the attention lavished on a singularly unspectacular Princess Diana. I was at a cocktail party at a neighbor’s house in late August 1997. We came home and my GF (of course) fired up the TV. She was in utter shock that Princess Diana had been killed in a car accident. OK…tragic and all that…but my GOD!!…the non-stop media coverage of the event almost drove me nuts. John Lennon’s murder didn’t even garner that level of media infatuation and John Lennon contributed far more to society than Lady Di. He was certainly more important to the American public.

    Personally, I thought a 33 year old, homely, jug-eared Royal marrying a 20 year old ditz distasteful. I like William much better. I like his formally commoner wife much better. I have no contempt for the Royal family, I just don’t think there’s anything special about them. I realize my point of view is terribly American (I can’t help that) but I can’t understand how an (allegedly) free people can tolerate a hereditary monarchy in this day and age. But…whatever blows your skirt up.

  10. fenbeagle says:

    Well that’s easy Dr Dave.
    …..Unlike America, this is not a democracy. (And as subjects, we don’t therefore have any choice.)
    …So its fortunate (perhaps) That the vote would rest with the monarchy anyway.
    And that’s after we tried the civil war thing. ….(Although we tolerate parliament as well) And, to prove our respect for Cromwells heavy cavalry, we let them ride with the Royal carriage. And allow ourselves to be governed by a government that nobody actually voted for (the Condems.)

  11. Luton Ian says:

    I was travelling a French motorway the day of Dianna’s funeral, whenever we stopped for a coffee & leak, all the TV screens in the service areas were full of it, no bloody escape, and slimeball B.Liar, coming out with “The People’s Princess” yuk.

    My girlfriend at the time actually claimed to like Di, I still haven’t a clue how or why.

    I’ll agree with the tackiness of a 33 year old marrying a dim witted (and, as we later found out extremely manipulative) 20 year old. A match made in hell.

    Charles I can pity, he’s the sort of idiot son character that a wealthy family would support and fund to play at being a “Gentleman farmer”, to give him something to occupy his time with, and to keep him from getting into too much trouble – as long as he never got his hands on a cheque book…

    Di, I actually disliked. she would have been far better left as an overbred nursery nurse and going to her Duran Duran concerts with her little Sloane Ranger pals.

    I think the Firm’s intention was to have her as an easily controlled clothes horse and brood mare. They couldn’t have picked a worse critter.

    Charley’s brothers didn’t seem to have much luck with their choices either, With females soldiers available now, they should have stuck to what their Auntie Margaret was good at. At regimental dinners, she’d keep all the officers sat at the table until she got a good looking man.

    At least Kate won’t have to put up with the woman as mother in law.

    This is the most time that I’ve spent thinking about her since she croaked. no more, life’s too short.

  12. farmerbraun says:

    N.Z. A republic in all but name:

    FB – exactly. Our own constitutional arrangements are basically the same as NZ. Hence my final sentence.

    As to Australia becoming a formal republic, we had a vote on it over a decade ago; the monarchist Prime Minister at the time made sure the question put was such that the referendum was easily sabotaged, and stood no chance of passing.

    The general sentiment in Australia today is that we should become a republic, that it is in fact inevitable, but that we have more important things to think about right now, and the issue can sleep until the present monarch’s reign draws to a close. Queen Elizabeth is loved and universally respected in Australia, even by most republicans. Unlike many of her chronically dysfunctional relatives, she has been a model of probity and devotion to duty, ever since her wartime work in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as a teenager nearly seventy years ago. The republic is an important issue, but there is no immediate hurry to change – Oz

  13. farmerbraun says:

    On the more important question of circus, when it’s Royal Wedding versus the Rugby, I mean, it’s just no contest.
    Consider the Royal Wedding ; the scrums are just pathetic for a start; crouch-touch-pause- Engage! Hello, the front rows are straight up; well what do you expect when they insist on so many hookers. I mean it’s not as though both sides are not taking advantage of plenty of free kicks. How many hookers do you need?
    Getting them into a line-out is virtually impossible; “you go and stand behind Anne, Charlie”. “I’m not bloody standing behind her. I’m next in bloody line for Christs’ sake.”

    You ‘re lucky if you can find a ball amongst them, the preponderance of males notwithstanding.

    Of course you’re lucky if you’ve even got this far; chances are that bloody Charlie will have planted the pitch in wildflowers in protest at the carbon emissions of the friggin’ lawnmower.
    Keeping both sides on the paddock till half-time is difficult , if not impossible. Irreconcilable differences they reckon. What? harden the fuck up, will ya?
    And at the end of the day all you’ve got is two losers and injured parties all over the wildflowers.
    Nah, give me the rugby, even if I have to walk over to the neighbour’s place to watch it.

  14. Kitler says:

    Well as my own notable ancestor helped establish this bunch during the battle of Hastings in 1066 and played a very notable part in this battle I’m obviously a monarchist. Bloody plebs.
    However what Australia and other countries choose to do is up to them but I will remind them the current arrangement costs them little, just think about President Joolia whom no doubt will require expensive toys to fly them around the world at great expense and the new Presidential Palace to be built will be lavish.
    What is better a distant head of state with little power or an expensive egomaniac eroding the rights of their countrymen.

  15. Kitler says:

    fenbeagle the USA is not a democracy but a Republic there is a difference, the leader here is chosen by two representatives from each State not by direct vote and they can go against the wishes of the electorate it has happened once before.

  16. Dr. Dave says:


    You may wish to brush up on how the electoral college functions. There are 538 electors in each Presidential election. Electors are apportioned primarily by population density but all states are apportioned a minimum irrespective of size. The system places slightly more emphasis on low population states in “flyover country”. Without this system candidates would simply pander to the whims of the top 10 largest cities (Democrats already do this).

    The winner is the first candidate to garner 270 electoral votes. In recent decades Democrats start off with over half that goal in the bag because they will always carry the liberal northeastern states and the socialist left coast. Generally speaking, whichever candidate wins the popular vote within a state wins all that state’s electoral votes. The net effect is the result almost always mirrors the popular vote. It is, however, possible to lose the popular vote yet win the electoral vote. This was case with Bush (I think in 2000). This possibility makes bit city liberals howl.

    The electoral college is sort of a hybrid of popular representation (like the House) and state representation (like the Senate). If every state had only two electors the Democrats would never win another election. Pure popular vote favors Democrats because high population densities are concentrated in big cities and urban areas that are consistently Democrat majorities. These areas also represent the regions where the greatest proportion of entitlement spending and other federal aid is concentrated. This facilitates “buying votes” with taxpayer money. States are apportioned electoral votes by the number of House seats they have plus their two Senate seats and Washington DC is granted 3 electoral votes (i.e. 435 House seats, 100 Senate seats + 3 for DC). US territories have no electoral representation in Presidential elections which is why candidates don’t bother to campaign in Puerto Rico or Guam.

    What pisses the liberals off is that a state like South Dakota with a population of under a million has a disproportional degree of representation relative to their highly populated liberal enclaves. This is fair because a state like SD contributes more in terms of GDP (e.g. more farmers and ranchers than lawyers and bureaucrats). Interestingly, most farmers and ranchers vote Republican while most lawyers and state and federal bureaucrats overwhelmingly vote Democrat. A great map you may still be able to find on the internet is the individual counties won by Bush in 2004 compared to those won by Kerry. In terms of land mass (i.e. the productive regions of the nation) almost the whole nation was red (Bush) while flecks of blue lined the coasts and areas like Detroit and Chicago.

    Personally, I don’t like the all-or-none distribution of electoral votes within a state. I would like to see states establish a system whereby the popular candidate state-wide receives the 2 “Senate seat” votes and the rest are apportioned by popular vote within each particular congressional district. In this way no Democrat would ever win all 20 electoral votes in Illinois or all 55 in California and no Republican could ever win all 38 electoral votes in Texas. Such a system would preserve the electoral clout of the individual states while more fairly apportioning the remaining electoral votes by local, popular vote. This system would not favor Democrats so it will never be adopted.

    No system is perfect. Any system that places more emphasis on pure popular vote favors Democrats and big cities (i.e. NYC and LA would pick who is president every 4 years). Any system that emphasizes federalism (e.g. one electoral vote per county) would end up being an unfair lock for Republicans. I would like to see our current electoral college system refined. Illinois, California and Texas are good examples. Many voters feel unrepresented with our current system. Illinois is dominated by a handful of counties clustered around Chicago. The rest of the state is rural and mostly conservative. Whichever candidate wins Chicago will automatically be granted all 20 of their electoral votes. Much of rural and northern California is conservative but whoever wins the densely populated coastal region wins all 55 of their electoral votes. Likewise Texas has pockets of extreme liberals but their electoral votes will be granted along with all 38 to the Republican who will almost certainly win the state. The system I propose would enhance local, popular representation but would dilute the unfair clout of the big cities.

    Though flawed and imperfect, the elector college is better than handing the keys to the kingdom over to an heir. To all you Royalists out there – LONG LIVE THE ROUNDHEADS!

    G’day Dave,

    We’ve talked about the issue of electoral systems in the past on LibertyGibbert; genuine proportional representation, either through your Electoral College or through multi-member electorates (such as the Hare-Clark voting system we have here in Tasmania), while indeed expressing more accurately the will of the electorate, open the way for third-parties, single-issue candidates, and so on. Ask yourself, how would Ross Perot or Ralph Nader have done under a genuinely proportional distribution of electoral college votes? Much better, obviously.

    My guess is that under such a system, your country would end up with a profusion of “third” candidates, all of whom with which deals would have to be done by the two main parties in order to get to 270. I guess it’s a trade-off between “perfect” democracy (whatever that means) and ungovernability and makeshift coalitions. A bit like we have in the Australian parliament right now.

    Gerard Newman from the Australian Parliamentary Library has written this excellent comparison of electoral systems around the world. Well worth a read – Oz

  17. Luton Ian says:

    Dr Dave,
    I’m assuming you mean Oliver Cromwell, rather than John Thomas, when you write “Round Heads” 😉

    Unfortunately the “Lord Protector”, turned out just like every other absolutist who has been allowed to gain too much power. His puritanical Calvinist religious leanings didn’t help matters either.

    One of his few good deeds was to formalise toleration of Jews in Britain, they were still officially banished when he came to power, although in practice, a blind eye was turned.

    As the first military leader to take all of the island of Ireland, his “two state solution” (Catholics to the boggy, high rainfall and mountainous province of Connaught – or to hell on the point of a puritain’s sword), laid the foundations for the potato famine centuries later, and for the Irish Catholic diaspora.

    He wasn’t a pleasant person, even by the low standards of the time.

    I’m not a Royalist, but, in its present ceremonial only roll, monarchy is much less of a threat to freedom than an activist president or “Lord Protector” could be,

    or for that matter, the threat posed by the present Rotten Borough “Democracy” where the politicians have bought such a large proportion of their electorate with stolen money.

  18. Dr. Dave says:


    Interesting concept. I’ve often agonized over our two party system. Our Founders never envisioned “party” government. Jefferson was our first real “Democrat” while Lincoln was our first real “Republican”. Over the years we have had other parties come and go (e.g. the Whigs, the Bull Moose party). Today we have minor parties of very little influence (e.g. the Green Party and the Libertarian Party). Though the Democrats pissed and moaned, Ralph Nader has never had any real impact on American elections. The same cannot be said for Ross Perot. Perot effectively split enough of the Republican vote to assure a Democrat win by Bill Clinton in 1992. I shall never forgive the vile little dwarf even though he had some good ideas.

    I hate party politics but when I consider the alternatives such as the coalition governments in the UK and OZ and the utterly ineffectual governments in Canada I acquiesce. On the other hand these coalition governments are generally slower to run a country into ruin. In the US neither party is guiltless, but if you were to fetch a legal pad and start listing liberty killing initiatives based on party you would find the Democrat column filling up far more rapidly, especially since the Wilson administration. The Democrat/Progressives are essentially socialists. The Republicans may have perfected crony capitalism, but the Democrats raised it to an art form. Believe me, the Republican Party routinely disgusts me but the Democrats are blatant socialist criminals.

    The changes I propose to our Electoral College would almost exactly mirror the way we elect of representatives in the House and Senate…but it wouldn’t favor Democrats. In fact, ANY change away from popular vote (i.e. the “tyranny of the majority”) would be to the detriment of the Democrat party. Today one in six Americans are receiving food stamps. We have Medicare recipients than Canada has citizens. Ditto for Social Security. Add to this housing subsidies, Medicaid and welfare and you have 1/2 of the nation suckling on the government teat. In fact, almost 50% of the nation pays NO income tax. Dependency buys votes for Democrats and rots the nation from within. The more people become accustomed to the notion that it is their “right” to live off the labor of others, the less free we become year by year.

  19. Luton Ian says:


    Italy abandoned its PR system, which had resulted in the Christian Democrats being part of every single government since the end of WWII.

    The CDs weren’t voted out, they collapsed in a mass of corruption scandals, and it took Berlusconi to gather together sufficient people with centre right leanings and who’d never been in politics before, to form a new, clean party of the centre right (this is part of the reason why the communist judges and journalists are constantly throwing shit at him, hoping that some will stick).

    The last Italian general election saw only centrist parties getting representation. For the first time since the war, there were no communists or hard line right wingers elected.

    Compare this to the British ConDem coalition and the Dems hopes of never ever being out of government again if Britain adopts PR.

    The last time the Dems formed a government (other than participating in the wartime national unity government) was the disastrous Liberal Government of the early 1920s, in which Winston Churchill played no small part in the disaster. Now they hope to be king maker.

    Here in Ireland, we have PR, and without it, Fianna Fail (national socialist lite) would form the majority every time.

    With it we had the Greens, with every single one of theirs elected to the lower house, in a ministerial or junior ministerial job, on about 3% of the popular vote -Lunacy!

    The upper house, is part elected on a limited franchise (doctors, lawyers, graduates of a few universities) and as appointees of the president and chief minister. It is intended to avoid a dictatorship of the majority, but in practice it isn’t very effective. Incompetence is a much more effective check on power.

    I’m not sure that anything is gained by PR. The bigger parties which form in first past the post systems, are after all, coalitions.

    Precisely Ian. You’ve described a choice of where the main politicking and argy-bargy occurs – in the party room before the election, or in the parliament after it – Oz

  20. Dr. Dave says:

    Luton Ian,

    Obviously I was referring to Oliver. In my defense, my understanding of British history is sorely lacking. For instance, I have absolutely no idea how this current family of Germans became your Royal monarchs. Most in the US don’t know and don’t care. Until relatively recently I had no interest in the politics of the UK or OZ…it didn’t seem to affect me. What caught my attention is how closely those in the UK and OZ followed US politics. So I figured I pay closer attention to their politics. For the most part it lends some comfort when dealing with my own.

  21. Dr. Dave says:

    Here’s an amusing take on the Royal wedding courtesy of the inimitable Iowahawk:

  22. fenbeagle says:

    Dr Dave….I have absolutely no idea how this current family of Germans became your Royal monarchs.

    ….Because we had been fighting alongside the Dutch against the Spanish, for many years. Ever since Henry Tudor broke us away from the power of Catholic Rome. And Elizabeth 1 fell out with Spain. The choice for the people…. (Although there was no ballot box) Was to support a now Catholic King, and a shift of power back towards Rome and Spain.
    …. Or to continue with a protestant church, and support for Holland….And a new King from Hanover.

    …A king from Hanover involved much less violence and overturning of things…..(Britain has had plenty of that, the people always get the worst of it.)

    …..There was nobody else on the ballot paper.

  23. Luton Ian says:

    Precisely Ian. You’ve described a choice of where the main politicking and argy-bargy occurs – in the party room before the election, or in the parliament after it – Oz

    The smoke filled rooms, small enough to exclude the interests of the electorate, but large enough for the bus that the electorate’s interests get thrown under.

    The time of “The [Stuart monarch’s] Protestant Whoor”?

  24. Amanda says:

    Oz, you say it all beautifully. What a writer, and what an Enlightenment democrat. Well done, sir.

  25. Amanda says:

    Since I’m back here (oh god it’s *her* again), I’d like to correct Kitler who was correcting Fenbeagle: and this time I know I’m right. America certainly IS a democracy — a representative democracy, however, as against a direct one (e.g. the Greek states excepting Sparta and perhaps other minor ones at their Periclean apogee).

    Furthermore, ours is a modern Lockean liberal democracy, embodying Enlightenment principles and ideals (to the extent that those aren’t identical); at the same time, we are a republic. Canada is also a democracy but it is officially a constitutional monarchy and not a republic, obviously enough. Also, it lacks America’s more thorough-going division of powers, or separation of the legislature and the executive branches (the judicial in both countries being of course another branch and clearly separate, at least historically), because it is a parliamentary democracy and the chief executive is a member of parliament. Even though their legislature is also bi-cameral.

    I shall post this over at Fen’s in case he doesn’t see this.

  26. Ozboy says:

    Well, whaddya know:

    Seems the current CHOGM meeting has been used as an opportunity to alter the rules of succession. Well done.

Comments are closed.