In fact some still do.

For someone who is so Afro-centric you don’t seem to have done any research.

If you have a problem with people doing so, with expressing their constitutional rights of freedom of expression and political beliefs, then perhaps it is you that should go to another country.

Off you go then.

If freely expressed majority support is not prima facie proof of democratic governance, it is a useful indication of consent – ergo it is quite easily compatible with, if not crucial to, several important facets of democratic governance.

Case in point: the example provided (segregation) was an arrangement which disallowed free and forthright political discussion by the majority. The odd use of scare quotes in “popular” suggests that you don’t quite believe segregation held majority support, either.

See how you deceive people Comrade.

All of that said, it works. Only progressives with their unthinking and self-regarding faith in their limited stock of reason, believe rationality should be the sole arbiter of how we should organize ourselves. For example, it’s not a coincidence that the countries which are best at equality overall (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands) also tend to be monarchies. Further, monarchies remind us that our fate in life is due not solely to merit but to luck, and thus increases public support for redistribution. Is it really an accident that monarchical Spain is more equal than presidential Portugal, or Canada more egalitarian than the US, or Denmark more than Finland?

And what of the alternative? If we had an elected presidency, what sort of preening, self-loving narcissistic egomaniac would think they were capable of representing and symbolizing the nation?

An elected presidency would thus symbolize – and so help entrench – our culture of ego, the belief that people are to be valued for who they are as individuals rather than for their roles. By contrast, a monarchy embodies the opposite principle – that people matter for what they do, not for who they are.

I’m sure you’ve read this before JS, but I think the alternative if so much worse.

Sure, it could be reformed with minor changes, in 1980 the Swedish Monarchy adopted equal primogeniture replacing its previous agnatic primogeniture system allowing the eldest child regardless of gender to inherit. Similarly the Act of Succession couold be modified to allowing the marriage of Catholics but not the sucession of Catholics to the Throne itself (due to the implications it would have for the Church of England).

All residents of Scotland could vote in the referendum, which you held up as a great success for democracy – a ‘paragon of democracy’, I think you called it.

But you’re strangely less enthusiastic about all residents being able to vote in other contexts. Like in Bermuda.

So you’re ok with democracy, as long as it fits within your predetermined views about who should be able to participate.

My point was simply that not everything that is popular is also democratic, and vice versa – providing an example from our history.

So you’re not really interested in what the majority of people actually want; you’re interested in making them take what you think is good for them.

As for polling, bear in mind people generally don’t question the status quo. And it depends on the question. I’m quite confident that you’ll get quite contradictory results from ‘should we keep the monarchy’ to ‘should all citizens be equal’ (by definition we’re not as long as the head of state is inherited) or ‘should our head of state be elected’ or ‘should the head of state be accountable’.

Bear in mind that a large chunk of the people’s money given to the monarch is used for an aggressive propaganda campaign too.

As we well know, what’s popular isn’t always democratic. Segregation, after all, was once ‘popular’…

One confused young man who genes come from many

Reminds me of many other Bermudians who can deal with family history but this guy just has it out for everyone.

Others accept.

Some are just radicals because they don’t want to accept.

I agree she hasn’t done anything. Which is yet another reason I question the ‘celebration’about her. Essentially the story is just ‘old woman stays in job for a long time’. Whoopee.

The Iraqi’s said same.
The Iranians say similar.
The Kurds/Shietes
The Syria’s say same; Lybia, North Africa et al.

Next.

Marxism has nothing at all to do with republicanism. In fact, British republican thought has existed prior to the birth of Karl Marx.

Perhaps you’ve concluded support for the monarchy is absurd and turned to personal attacks out of that epiphany of yours?

I can hear the bank laughing at any suggestion that I qualify as ‘rich’!

Shalom.

Among other things, the Queen of England is, by and large, popular with, and approved of by, the British public. That is to say, her symbolic reign is entirely compatible with one of the usual benchmarks of a functional democracy, i.e. freely expressed majority support.

You can choose to be willfully ignorant of the tyranny, and plunder this family represents all you want. You are in the minority. THE WORLD knows the truth behind her family – it is a shame you choose to be believe the “revisionist” history.

Vulcan you are an idiot, truly a “useful” idiot in the purest sense. The “royal” family are GERMAN for crying out loud! Why do you think they called the WW1 the “War of Cousins” The Windsor name now used by the “Queen” only dates back to 1917. During that war George V changed the name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor due to very strong anti German Sentiment at the time – in addition they abandoned all titles held under the German Crown and changed all “estate and properties” titles to more Anglican sounding titles as well.

I could go on and on in regards to this topic but it is very clear that you sheep love the reality you are fed. I doubt any of you in support of this “monarch”, her ascendants and descendants to follow have ever actually opened your eyes.