As this thread\post is not really about the monarchy, l hope you’ll forgive me for not responding here.

Yours,

Jonathan

I think, in principle, a hereditary head of state (a monarch) who perversely is also head of the state church would be considered by anyone with a functioning synapse to be utterly ridiculous. If you were starting from scratch, you’d never do this!

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. 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 is 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).

I think the entire British democratic system, encompassing its colonies like us, needs revamped.

To me a federal system makes the most sense. England needs its own parliament, although it might be better to actually create a few parliaments devolved on a regional basis there (the north, the southwest, the southeast and the midlands perhaps?), and a federal parliament responsible only for non-devolved powers, so foreign affairs and defense I suppose.

As long as Bermuda chooses to remain part of the British system, I do think we should have representation in a federal parliament, and have called for that in the past. Each colony should be able to send at least one MP to such a parliament.

I am not convinced of the need for a two-chamber parliament. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly work quite well as single-chamber parliaments, with checks and balances internal to them (greater focus on committees for example). However, if we are to have a second chamber, then it should be elected – and that goes for our own Senate.

And don’t get me started on the need for an elected head of state!

Quo Fata Ferunt

Look at the way the OT’s have been maligned as “tax havens or cheats” when London is by far the bigger, when the OT’s should be protected by Cameron.

Why would he allow us a voice?

Look at what he has given us, a Governor TOTALLY and DIRECTLY responsible for defense, external affairs and internal security that instead of leading the fight on crime and having an effective judiciary is quite happy to sit back and let local politicians slog it out like they actually have a say instead of being puppets to the whims of the FCO.