The children of Paul Emery Washington think of their father as an unpretentious, generous guy who climbed the corporate ladder to become regional manager at CertainTeed manufacturing, a building-supply company. Now 82, he takes care of his wife, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, while spending time on the San Antonio, Texas, property that he shares with his children. "I think he would've been a great king," says son Bill Washington—a statement, we admit, that might seem a little odd. Except that Paul Emery Washington is a direct descendant of George Washington, our nation's first president and perhaps the only man in history who turned down the position of monarch.

via America’s ‘Lost Monarchy’: The Man Who Would Be King | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com

--

Look, I know you get a big bonus in your capital when there is a monarchy, and you can declare war on whomever you like whenever you like, but the simple fact is that the downsides of recessive genes overweigh the acts of our fathers nearly every single time.

I don't think the Monarchs were in attendance. Too dangerous. They should order a Popemobile for parades. It only costs $511,000.

A duchess perhaps. You would have to be titled to join the parade, I would think.

A lady in waiting?

A courtesan most definitely! She reminds me of my great aunt Olga Che!

So this is the part where I get confused. The last week-end of October, The United Court of Lone Star Empire will host its Coronation XXXIV. On one hand, that bodes well for the current monarchs because, between you and me, I thought that if the current ones were edition XXXIII, emperors were kicking the bucket at an alarming speed in the Lone Star Empire, but on the other hand, that means emperors and empresses are... elected?! What kind of monarchy is that? Monarcracy? Only in America...

The items, which include paintings, furniture, and the last letter written by Marie Antoinette to her sister-in-law, are being sold in order to revive the wealth of the scandalized House of Orleans, descendants of the last monarchs of France.

The story begins nine years ago when the pretender to the French throne, the Comte de Paris, passed away. His son, Prince Henri d'Orleans, believed that he had inherited one of the greatest family fortunes in Europe. At one point, the Orleans family was worth 200 million euros. But instead, when it was revealed to Prince Henri exactly how much he inherited, it was only a measly 12.2 million euros.

Three years after the Comte's death, Prince Henri brought a complaint before a Paris judge to try to establish the reason for such a dramatic loss of inheritance. Henri d'Orléans explained at the time that he wished to "demand justice and put things back the way they should be".

His lawyers were unsuccessful, however, in tracing millions of euros withdrawn by his father in the years before his death The inquest did manage to shed some light on the financial side of the Comte's relationship with his former nurse, Monique Friese, with whom he lived with for 20 years before his death. She is accused by five of his children of having "unduly benefited" from their father's wealth. That charge mostly stems from the Comte's purchase of a house for his mistress and the subsequent funds that he spent on upgrading and furnishing the property.

The family is just one of the claimants to the throne, tracing its lineage back to Louis XVI. The Orleanistes, as they are known, are the best documented pretenders, claiming to be descended directly from the last French king, Louis Philippe (1830-1848) and the brother of Louis XVI, who was guillotined along with Marie Antoinette and their only son during the Revolution. Although there are other rival claimants to the throne, the Orleans family has generally been accepted by most French royalists as the most legitimate.

Ironically, it was the obscene expenditure and opulent lifestyle of the last court at Versailles that led in part to the French Revolution of 1789 and the abolition of the monarchy in favour of a republic, although it was later reinstated before being finally axed for good.

Among the artifacts the Orleanistes are auctioning include a silk purse Marie Antoinette worked on during the last days of her life. Ivory colored, with red roses on it, she made the purse while a prisoner in the Temple Palace in 1792. It is the item generating the most excitement in this auction - that, along with a letter Marie Antoinette wrote to Madame Elizabeth, her sister-in-law, on the fateful day of October 16, 1793.

In the celebrated final letter, written just hours before her execution in what is now the Place de la Concorde, Marie Antoinette, by then a wizened woman of 48, wrote: "I pardon my enemies the wrongs that they have done me ... I also had friends ... Let them know that, to my last moment, I was thinking of them."

The purse has been estimated to be worth about 15,000 euros. Also up for auction is the quill used by King Louis Philippe to sign the act of abdication in 1848, and rosary beads belonging to his wife, Queen Marié-Amelie, with a much more affordable price tag of 300 - 500 euros.

The entire auction is estimated to be worth only 1 million euros -  a far cry from the luxury of years gone by.

Parts of this article comes from the UK newspaper The Independent

MICKMCK707

There, King Abdullah made an emphasis that the kingdom had to focus on its economy and job creations.

"The economy still tops our priorities, especially its social dimension, due to the economic challenges that resulted from international rising prices,'' the monarch said.

"At the top of national priorities there stands, in the medium range, economic reform and the completion of a strong national economy that reflects positively on Jordanians' standard of living.''

Jordan, one of the smallest economies in the Middle East, imports more than 90 percent of its oil and relies on foreign investment and grants. Rising property prices and investments from oil-exporting Persian Gulf countries boosted Jordan's finance, insurance and real-estate industries by 8.5 percent

"Achieving the economic prosperity we seek requires the immediate application of measures to guarantee financial stability and enhance the investment environment,” the King said.

 “Among these measures is controlling inflation, activating banking policies that guarantee the safety of banking institutions and their reputations and elevating the monitoring tools of depositors and guaranteeing clients’ rights.”

Measures will include raising the minimum wage, currently at around 155 dollars a month, reforming the tax law in a bid to encourage investors and controlling inflation.  

Thanks Denae' and Summer :)

A spokesman for the prince's party - Funcinpec - said the prince told supporters he had spent enough time pursuing a political career and it was time to retire. He said Ranariddh had informed King Norodom Sihamoni, his half brother, about his decision.

Last week, Ranariddh returned from 18 months in exile in Malaysia after the king pardoned him for an embezzlement conviction.

Ranariddh is a son of retired King Norodom Sihanouk, from whom he inherited Funcinpec, a former armed Cambodian resistance movement. He then turned the party into a royalist political movement.

My headline is a poke at Canada's few thousand (small-R) republicans, who tend to get disproportionate MSM coverage there (while the Monarchy, the GG, the LGs, and monarchists get very little, usually negative or stereotyped, such as relatively unimportant "gaffes," or "tea and crumpets" Anglophilia), and who claim to desire to "end constitutional links to Britain" by abolishing Canada's Monarchy.  They clearly either don't understand Canada's constitution, or deliberately obfuscate the issue for ulterior motives: Many want to make Canada a clone of the United States (though others claim not to).  The fact is that Monarchy vs. Republic is not an issue as far as the general Canadian public cares; they're content with the status quo.  If some MSM "journalist" or pollster asks a leading question like a bad prosecutor, then sure, they think about it, because they're caring, intelligent people, less likely than Yanks to tell them to do something unpleasant to themselves.  But for the Canadian democracy -- as opposed to the Canadian (U.S.-influenced) punditocracy -- constitutional change of this magnitude is a non-starter.  They remember how a whole generation from the mid-1970s to the mid-90s was consumed with constitutional questions, and they just want to get on with normal life.

Do some Canadian politicians want to dump the Queen of Canada and become President?  Canadians are wiser to the ways of politicians than most Americans I think, perhaps because they have an option to deny them absolute power: the Monarchy.  Even the most powerful politician in Canada is nothing more than Her Majesty's Canadian chief servant or advisor; "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen" (Constitution Act 1867, paragraph 9 [formerly known as the original British North America Act that created the Canadian confederation out of 4 UK colonies]).

So it's true, Canada has ended constitutional links to Britain ... as of 1982.  In fact, HM came to Ottawa and signed it herself!

PS: I wonder if at least some who oppose Prince Charles succeeding his mother perceive her as having been weaker than some of her recent male predecessors, whereas His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is well-known for having definite opinions that call into question the accumulation of power -- to society's detriment -- by politicians, businesspeople, ideologues, gratuitous anti-traditionalists, even 'regressive' pseudo-traditionalists, and such.  I certainly don't agree with everything HRH has said or done publicly or personally, but he does strike me as sometimes a real 'progressive conservative,' or Red Tory in Canadian terms!

"I have decided that I may have to be the decider in this decision," Bush decided to tell reporters at the White House. "Democracy has so far failed to pass this important legislation, so a decision deciding in favor of it may be decided by me."

The president said he will consider invoking Executive Order 66, which will prevent Congress from making any more decisions by leaving the deciding up to him. It will activate martial law and eliminate all public elections. Shares of Halliburton Corp. went up on the news.

"The American populace needs strong leadership to get this bailout law in place, because profits are at stake here," Bush declared. "And without profits, the country cannot move forward and stand on its own. The alternative to this only choice will not be successful. We must never mind the furthermore, to plead this is common sense."

Most Americans are opposed to bailing out Wall Street, despite the president's dire warnings about the consequences of doing nothing. Many disgusted Americans are planning to drop out of the economic system altogether if the bailout bill passes.

"Why should I work hard only to have my money confiscated and given to rich people on Wall Street?" asked Larry Johnson, a factory worker in Detroit, Michigan. "Screw it. If this bailout passes, I'm going to go live with the Amish. I'll grow my own food, make my own clothes and give up electricity and hot water. No more credit cards. No more taxes to pay."

President Bush, who is aware that Americans are leaning toward a less modern and less slave-like existence, warned them against leaving America's corporate-controlled economic system.

"Collectivating on farms and living peaceably without debt might seem like the answer, but it isn't," he said. "That's socialism, and it will fail. That's why I urge my fellow Americans to support the Wall Street bailout package with their tax money, so we can preserve our free markets and capitalism."

As posted yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg gave the New York Times an exclusive pre-announcement in today's paper that he will attempt to overturn voted-in term limits in order to install himself for a third term in office.

He will spend whatever it takes to do so and, as he is a multi-billionaire, that's no problem. He is expected to make the official announcement tomorrow, Thursday, October 2nd.

Term limits were voted in twice by voters and currently allow elected officials only two terms in office.

But, alas, our CEO Mayor has the City Council under his control with Speaker Christine Quinn as an ally. Since it's too late to get a new voter referendum on the table in time for the 2009 elections, this vote can (apparently) be overturned by the Council. We know that the Mayor would not attempt this if he wasn't certain it was possible to rig the system via "backroom deals" as Comptroller William Thompson (also running for Mayor in '09) told the New York Times in today's paper.

The major NYC dailies have all met with the Mayor behind closed doors and are all in favor of his staying on. They have overwhelmingly cast an uncritical eye during his reign, which is why voters -- who perhaps don't have all the facts -- have allegedly given him a "high approval rating." I actually don't believe his approval rating is that high but, when the system is so rigged, how can we know what is truth?

Best quote I've seen thus far from Fred Siegel, a professor at Cooper Union, who told the New York Times:

"What this represents is the complete collapse of 'small d' democratic politics in New York under the Bloomberg monarchy. He is becoming our Berlusconi. He owns the press and he is not accountable in ordinary ways."

Bloomberg's previous quotes on the issue of term limits:

"At a time of excessive cynicism about so many of our institutions, I believe that elected officials should seek at every opportunity to maintain and enhance the trust of the citizens… I believe it is simply inappropriate for those members elected in 1997, who were aware of the rules under which they were elected, to seek to change those rules in a manner that may work to their own advantage." -- August 2002

"My experience in business has been, whenever we've had somebody who was irreplaceable, their successor invariably did a better job, and I think change is good. Yes, you throw out an occasional good person, but you also throw out a lot of people who have just gotten stale and take it for granted, haven't had any new ideas, so on balance I've always been a believer in term limits." -- 2006

This can only get more interesting (while continuing to be outrageously alarming). Stay tuned.

**************************************************

WSP blog previous entry "Please say it isn't so; Mayor Bloomberg Seeking Third Term" from June 4th outlines some of my issues with the Mayor.

     Listen carefully to what is being promoted in the Presidential campaign.  A candidate promotes government run programs, government leaders are constantly promoting bail outs.  If we carefully research and logically think through the socialistic ideals being promoted we will see much error.  The error is something as simple as a couple of examples.

First, consider minimum wage as an example.  Currently, we essentially have 3 levles of income or "3 classes," (though each of these classes have varying degrees) in our economical makeups - lower, middle, upper.  When minimum wag increases occur the low income earners get an increae in pay.  The middle earners do not receive this increase.  The upper earners don't either, but they are normally the corporate or business owners.  If a business owner has to increase wages, they will increase the cost of their product or service because their expenses have increased.  Corporate America is not going to take a pay (profit) cut nor should they be required to do so.  The pay raise is effectively negated and pointless due to the rise in cost of the product and/or service.   Then what is the damage you ask.  The middle class has not had an increase in income, yet their cost of living has gone up substantially.  This means you have effectively given the middle class a pay cut and only managed to move them closer to the lower class.  The upper class is generally unaffected negatively.  And you now have only 2 class levels or levels of income, upper and lower class.

     Another example are the ideas on taxes to promote or afford the "new" governmental programs and bailouts.  If you increase the taxes on corporations (at this time the target are the oil companies), they increase the cost of their goods and services.  Again, they will not take a cut in profit.  In most cases they will likely over adjust to compensate for future risk also.  So, the same effect is here as in the minimum wage case.  The middle class feels the heat.  They are the ones who feel the economic pressure.   Once again effectively decreasing the gap between the middle and lower class income levels.  The upper class is either distanced from the two classes (which are now one) or at a minimum stays the same.

     Now consider what is being attempted right now.  The minimum wage has gone up and taxes are possibley heading that direction (depending on the upcoming elections).  In discussing these two scenarios, it is obvious the middle class will be effectively eliminated, leaving only an upper class and a lower class.  Care to guess who the ruling class will be?  The government will be the ruling class, the upper class.  The "other" class will be the ruled class, who are enslaved and dominated, subjected to the will and fickle desires of the ruling class.

     What, you say, does all of this have to do with the verse quoted at the beginning?  Go back to the old monarchy system of Europe.  European nations with brutal, controlling, manipulating kings and queens using their "subjects" as pawns, entertainment, play things and power gaining purposes.  Our ancestors, our forefathers left Europe for those reasons.  Our forefathers left Europe so their descendants did not have to live under such oppresion, but could live in and enjoy freedom and liberty.  When they left Europe to come to America, they set up a system which was directly opposite of that which they were fleeing.  The direct opposite of what they fled is personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, hard work and freedom, enabling many to succeed as opposed to only the powerful.  How many stories have we heard of the infamous "rags to riches" variety?  How many of those "rags to riches" stories are of immigrants.  Immigrants who left their own country due to a lack of freedom and liberty and came to America with nothing.

     America is the opposite of the old Europe and even current Europe.  America is here and is successful because we were not Europe.  America's way of doing things - liberty, freedom, self sufficiency, hard work and personal responsibility- are and improvement and growth from the European approach.  The United States of America was established because those in America disagreed with the ways of the "old country" from which they came and wanted to improve on them.  Europe is where America came from because of the error in its methods.  Why would America want to turn it's back on what has made it successful in order to go back to what it has already learned does not work from experience.  "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a FOOL returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11.  Do you know what verse 12 says?  Do you want to know what verse 12 says?  "Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is no more hope of a fool than him."  The whole passage of Scripture, Proverbs 26, speaks to the current social and political climate in America.  Verse 26 through 28 say, "Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation.  Whoso diggeth a pit shall FALL THEREIN: and he that rolleth a stone, it WILL RETURN ON HIM.  A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin."  Sound like politics and the American condition to you?

Witness and be converted:

Not convinced?  Here's further proof that the the Duchess of York's daughter is something of a butter face. 

Don't princesses get etiquette lessons?  WHY IS HER MOUTH ALWAYS OPEN?

One of the top headlines at the moment is the deteriorating state of Buckingham Palace. The Queens house. (I know she doesn't live there 24/7 which really actually adds to the argument)

The Queen is reportedly worth around £325 million ($586.2 million approx.), not including her assets such as all her fancy little country Castles such as Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.  This is £15 million more than the likes of Duncan Banatyne who earned his money.

Now, what the queen wants to do is tax the British public for the up keep of her stately homes. I for one think this is a disgrace. I personally do not care about the queen. She does nothing of note, she does not represent the British Public, especially in this day in age and as I see it this entire royalist lark is outdated.

I know I am not alone in these thoughts, so I really don't see why people such as myself should have to pay for refurbishments. I don't believe in God, so I don't go to church. Therefore, why when I don't believe in all this royal family malarky should I have to pay towards it?!

But, I have a suggestion...

Instead of taxing me and others like me (less face it, the way things are going in this crumbling country, I rarely see where its all going anyway) why not encourage a scheme where the upkeep of buildings such as Balmoral castle and Buckingham palace are paid for through donations. Much in the same way as a church congregation will pop a few coins in a dish for the church upkeep.

Everyone knows what a tourist attraction Buckingham Palace is and how much the tourist industry is worth to the country. In 2006 alone there were around 15.6 million visitors to London and with the Olympic games of 2012 on the horizon there will be an exponential increase in tourism revenue and so, why not encourage donations from those with the interest in the subject. If each of these people were to donate just 50p, that would create a total of nearly £7.8 million. More than enough for a new lick of paint here and there.

I myself will and do donate to things that are of interest to me, whether it be charities or a historic building or site and I really believe that this could work. Not a forced donation you understand, merely a "hey, If you like what you saw, please help us keep things that way"; much like the Baltic Gallery in Gateshead does. (and you'll often spot a fiver floating around in the donations pot too. Not just pennies)

In summary, don't tax the non-royalists like me, encourage donations from the many free spending tourists of the world!

Problem.

Solved.

H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej became a constitutional king after his as yet uncrowned 20 year-old brother, H.M. King Ananda Mahidol, met a sudden death on June 9, 1946. He himself was 18 years old at the time. Until his coronation in 1950, Thailand had been without a crowned resident Monarch for some 15 years since H.M. King Prajadhipok’s abdication. The onus was thus on His present Majesty to revitalise the status of the Monarchy and to fashion for it anew a role appropriate to the constitutional order

Virtuous and Constitutional King

Though bound by constitutional constraints, His Majesty none the less pronounced the Oath of Accession to “reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of all the people of Siam”, thus stating his royal intention to be a “Dharma Raja” or “Virtuous King” who would not act arbitrarily but within moral bounds, nor to seek personal benefits but to do all for the benefit of his people. The traditional idea actually dovetails nicely with that of the rule of law in a modern constitutional order. On this, His Majesty was to expound in 1978 and 1979 to the effect that though laws applied to all equally, they were mere instruments of justice rather than justice itself. Delivering justice required more than laws; a sense of morality and ethics and the recognition of the realities of the situation were also imperative.

Faced with a feeble constitutional order in the reign’s early years and with a government largely unappreciative of a Constitutional Monarch’s right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, His Majesty none the less persevered in the performance of his duty for the people’s benefit. He personally initiated many healthcare, educational and disaster relief programmes and also began pilot studies on rural development. When the opportunity arose, he made arduous trips to the outlying regions to visit his people and to find ways of alleviating their hardships. Thus endearing himself to his people, the Monarchy became a reality in the hearts and minds of the Thai. 

Developing influenc

Six Amazing Decades, Builder of The Nation

In 1957, Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat seized power and consolidated his ‘revolutionary’ regime. In reality a dictatorship devoid of any claim to legitimacy except for the reference to the paternalism of past kings and a commitment to national development, the regime had to rely on the Monarch as the fountain of legitimacy domestically and as the representative of a modern nation internationally, qualities which the regime itself lacked. 

In such circumstances, His Majesty was able to demonstrate in his own unique way the contributions a constitutional monarch could make to national development. He personally pioneered and paid for many development projects that reached out to the people in ways that the government bureaucracy failed to do, handing them over to the government to carry on in due course. These thus supplemented, and carved the way for, government programmes rather than conflicted with them. Neither were they beyond criticism. His Majesty is known to have said that, if they were, progress would not come about. In fact, the objective was to help the people to help themselves and become self-sufficient, and as a consequence better able to govern themselves. 

His Majesty’s patient and persevering pursuit of a step-by-step and evolutionary approach to the acting out of his role without incurring conflicts with the government in power eventuated in his having boundless royal influence in place of the powers Absolute Monarchs of times past had at their disposal. 

Influence at times of crisis

His Majesty has sparingly, carefully and suitably used the influence so built up to bring about resolutions to national political crises in the last 30 years of greater political consciousness about the meanings of constitutionalism and democracy among the general public. 

Guardian of the Nation

Author: Prudhisan Jumbala (source)

M.R.Prudhisan Jumbala is an associate professor in Politics, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, and is on the committees of the two foundations and the King Prajadhipok Museum

SOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej: An Appreciation

HM The King, A 15-part series in honour of the 60 years anniversary of His Majesty's accession to the throne. 

The Working Monach

Why should we be worried or even bothered about these proposals to repeal such seemingly archaic and irrelevant features of the UK's eclectic constitution? As far as primogeniture is concerned, it does seem rather unimportant and discriminatory to insist that if the first child of a reigning monarch is female, she should should be relegated behind any younger brothers in the line of succession. Probably most British people who are still attached to the monarchy would not be too concerned by scrapping this rule; and those of an anti-monarchic bent probably couldn't be bothered.

For me, however, it seems like an assault on one of the last bastions of an idea about authority in society that is Christian at root: that authority is ultimately vested by God in male persons. This is authority, not overweening power or a blank cheque to do as you wish, and is really in fact a form of service: the duty to represent and uphold God's authority and truth in the land, to serve him and try to ensure that his will is done.

This idea of the divine role of the monarch as a servant of God is closely linked to the reasoning behind the Act of Settlement. As the Guardian puts it, quoting from the words of the Coronation Oath, the monarch's constitutional duty is to "maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law . . . and . . . preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them". The monarch has to be Anglican because of this combined duty to 'maintain the Laws of God' (i.e. to ensure that secular laws as well as church governance reflect God's law) and to defend the established Protestant religion. This latter duty involves both the monarch's role as the Supreme Governor and Head of the Church of England, and a general responsibility to uphold the Church of Scotland (the established church of that land), even though the monarch is not the formal head of the Kirk.

If you remove the requirement for the monarch to be Anglican, then he or she cannot exercise this role as Defender of the (Protestant Christian) Faith, nor can (s)he be the Head of the Church of England. Consequently, as the Guardian article states, reforming the Act of Settlement would probably lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England.

Again, why should this matter? There are many supporters of an English parliament or English independence who would be happy to see the disestablishment of the Church of England and would prefer England to be constitutionally a secular country, without any established religion. However, they're missing something here. The talk is only of disestablishing the Church of England and not the Church of Scotland. Admittedly, the Church of Scotland is not an established, state church in the way that the Head of the UK state's simultaneous headship of the Church of England makes that church a state religion. But nonetheless, the Church of Scotland is the official, 'national' church of that land, with statutory duties to tender to the pastoral care of all the Scottish people, whether they belong to that church or not. Equally, as I have indicated above, the British king or queen still has a constitutional responsibility - as contained in the Oath of Accession - to "defend the security" of the Kirk.

No one, to my knowledge, is presently talking about 'disestablishing' the Church of Scotland in the sense of stripping it of its formal status as Scotland's 'national' Church, its legal responsibility for the pastoral care of all who live in Scotland, nor its royal protection. Nor, certainly, is anyone talking about allowing the Church of England to retain a similar status and set of responsibilities in the event of its disestablishment; i.e. that it should continue to be, in some sense, the national Church for England and to retain its age-old responsibility for the 'care of souls' in every parish in the land. That land being England.

And it's England's status as a nation that is ultimately at stake. The Church of England is perhaps the only remaining institution that preserves any sort of constitutional status for England as such. Through the Church of England, the head of the UK state and hence the state itself is constitutionally bound to have care and exercise governance over a real, established entity known as England and her people. If you sever the link between the monarch (and the state) and the Church of England, this means that there is no longer any established body that has jurisdiction over England as a nation. This would then mean that the UK monarch would have no particular constitutional duty to defend England as such - whether in a general or merely spiritual sense. And, accordingly, the UK state could decree that England as such was history, as there is no other constitutional, legal or political framework or institution that belongs to England only and exercises governance over England only.

In a context of constitutional reform in which England's status as a nation was assured and protected by things such as an English parliament - or even just the political will to acknowledge the nation and governance of England as precisely that and not treat it as just a territorial jurisdiction of UK governance - such an untying of the organic links between the state, the Christian faith and England would not be so grave a matter. But a comprehensive reform package of this sort is not what is on offer; far from it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the idea of any kind of English self-governance is not remotely on the government's constitutional-reform radar, as they have no model of governance other than that of UK-parliamentary sovereignty, to which England is absolutely subject, while any idea of English national, popular sovereignty is seen simply as a non-sequitur. And England would be even more subject to, and constitutionally indistinct from, the UK state as it currently stands if the Church of England were disestablished as there would be no national English Church to look out for us, and no head of state that was constitutionally bound to care and pray for England as such.

And this is why the as yet unspecified proposals to reform the Privy Council appear particularly sinister to me. If the Privy Council's powers to arbitrate in disputes between the UK state and Scotland or Wales were limited, presumably, this means that a body that currently has a constitutional duty to consider the interests of England - through its ties with the monarch and its exercise of the royal prerogative in matters such as the appointment of Church of England bishops, for instance - would no longer have as much influence in matters to do with the relationship between retained (UK-wide) and devolved governance. If decisions in such grey areas were left to the Cabinet and / or to parliament, rather than the Privy Council, there would be no need or duty to consider the interests of England at all, because parliament and the executive do not represent or govern any entity known as England but only the UK. So there would no longer be a third party - England - that could be seen as being affected by disputes between the UK state and the devolved nations. Constitutionally, there would be, in fact, only Britain and the devolved nations.

So these proposed measures could signal nothing less than the beginning of the end, or even the end of the end, of England.

Don't let it happen. Please sign the 'England Nation' petition, if you haven't done so already. Thank you.

“Hobbes preferred monarchy mainly because he believed there should be only one supreme authority. He could tolerate parliament alone, but not a system in which government power is shared. This is the exact antithesis to the views of Locke ...”  (Landry, Hobbes, 2) “Hobbes was a firm believer in absolutism but was greatly opposed to divine right.” (Abbot, 1)

Locke, on the other hand, viewed government as having “no other end than the preservation of property.” (Landry, Locke, 7). “For nobody can transfer, to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another.” (5) “If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the ‘ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed.’ (7)

"Thomas Hobbes’ greatest work was Leviathan. In this Hobbes stated that people by nature are selfish and ambitious ... The only way to restrain man’s natural aggression is by implementing an absolute power, whose main objective is to keep his subjects in line. In this form of government, the subject surrender[s] all rights to the state so that it is best equipped to keep peace any way necessary. This idea is essential for the transition from mans’ natural state of chaos to an orderly society.” (Abbot, 1) Hobbes also stated in his work De Cive, “Every man is presumed to seek what is good for himselfe naturally, and what is just, only for Peaces sake, and accidentally.” (Hobbes, 5) and that “[t]his naturall proclivity of men, to [is] hurt each other.” (4) Hobbes also asserts that because of man’s nature, he needs government. “A man’s nature does not require a governing state, independent of his own ... a better life might well be assumed through the existence of an outside governing state ... [therefore] it [is] unnatural for a man to put himself under the control of others, to have a government, but that it [is] rational to do so.” (Landry, Hobbes, 2) “[It is] in man’s best interest to band together under a government ... [P]eople, fully appraised of their chances in both states, would choose the state with a government as opposed to a state without one ... because an individual is better off in a state where only the government can, in certain prescribed situations, legitimately exercise aggression ...”  (2) These statements lead us to believe that Hobbes viewed human nature as evil.

“Locke ... viewed man as naturally moral.” (Landry, Locke, 5) “Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided.” (7) “[I]n his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a dualist (those who hold that reality subsists both in thought and in matter) – though only barely so; he did not consider man to be a divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was an empiricist ... all knowledge comes to us through experience ... There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions.” (3) “Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance ... [and] that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights. Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out ‘into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates,’ and did so as ‘a method of securing natural morality more efficiently.’ To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.” (5)

“[Locke] believed, with Hobbes, that man had once existed in a state of nature, but that, as a creature created in God’s image, man was possessed of reason, and therefore capable of rational behavior, which permitted him to cooperate with other men to form societies and to discern the laws of nature, the most important of which guaranteed him life, liberty, and property. Man acquired knowledge not by means of divine revelation or because he possessed innate ideas, but because his senses permitted him to learn from the external world, and put him in touch with reality.” (Cody, 1) “[Locke agrees with Hobbes] that man’s state of nature is a state of war and that a contract among the people can end the chaos that precedes the establishment of a civil society ... [but] unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people, by nature were reasonable.” (Abbot, 1)

If forced to choose, I would rather live under a government designed by John Locke versus Thomas Hobbes because it is more like a democracy. Although he “was no democrat: he believed that laborers had neither the time, the education, nor the inclination to make rational political judgments, and should not, therefore, be permitted to have a voice in government, and he denied a role in politics or government to individuals who were not possessed of property, (Cody, 2) Locke “did not subscribe to the ‘Divine Right Theory’” (Landry, Locke, 3) “Locke maintained, lay in a social contract between the people and their government, and the people were within their rights to remove or alter a government which betrayed their trust. Revolution, then, became the ultimate recourse (and a legitimate one) of a people whom tyranny had deprived of their rights.” (Cody, 1) By this opinion, Locke does appear to believe that citizens should be able to defend their rights and have a say in government, which is part of a democratic society. Locke’s ideas are more complimentary to the current government of the United States, whereas Hobbes’ ideas maintain authority of a monarchy “because he believed there should be only one supreme authority. He could tolerate parliament alone, but not a system in which government power is shared. This is the exact antithesis to the views of Locke ...” (Landry, Hobbes, 2).

© 2001 Michelle Jenkins
World Civilizations assignment regarding the of the governmental philosophies of Thomas Hobbes & John Locke.

Works Cited

Cody, David. “John Locke.” 16 January 2001. <http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/religion/locke1.html>)

Hobbes, Thomas. “De Cive: Chapter I: Liberty and Chapter III: Of the other Lawes of Nature.” 16 January 2001. <http://www.constitution.org/th/decive03.htm>

Landry, Peter. “John Locke.” Biographies. 1997-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm>

Landry, Peter. “Thomas Hobbes.” Biographies. 1997-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hobbes.htm>

Marvin, Chris. “John Locke.” The Window: Philosophers On The Internet. 1995-2000. 16 January 2001 <http://www.venturetech.com/philo/phils/locke.html>

Marvin, Chris. “Thomas Hobbes.” The Window: Philosophers On The Internet. 1995-2000. 16 January 2001 http://www.venturetech.com/philo/phils/hobbes.html

Of course I welcome such changes. The law as it stands is clearly a long way away from public opinion on equality. SNP Leader and First Minister of the Scottish Parliament Alex Salmond reportedly gave this comment.

"I welcome these moves. The Act of Settlement is an 18th-century anachronism that has no place in a modern 21st-century constitution. The SNP first raised the issue over a decade ago, the Scottish parliament united in 1999 to call for this long overdue reform, and I hope the prime minister follows through in early course."

What very few people seem to be recognising is that the monarchy itself is an antiquated anachronism that has no place in a modern 21st-century constitution. We shouldn't be looking at reforming the monarchy to fit in marginally better with the values and principles of a liberal democracy, when the principle it's based on (that of being born into such institutional power and wealth) is totally at odds with them! It reeks of hypocrisy. We should be working on getting rid of the monarchy altogether. My two penneth, anyway.

What 'human right' allows an unelected, undemocratic person to inherit the position of head of State, with unbridled power and influence along with vast estates, palaces and castles paid for by taxpayers who can exercise no control over them. Time to change the law regarding Royals indeed, time to abolish this feudal anachronism for good.

Oh! Reports out today also suggest that the monarchy is demanding even more money from taxpayers; so around £150million per year isn't enough then! That's around ten times the cost of an average European President.

Ok, the buildings belong to the state anyway so it's our obligation to maintain them. But her subjects are feeling the credit squeeze too. The running costs of our own humble little abodes are increasing and we arehaving to make cutbacks and tighten our belts. Is it not reasonable to expect the royals to lead by example - to consume less and to budget more?

And I hear that her royal almighty feels that she needs more money to carry out her official duties - her official duties being, as some would argue, a service to the British public. Yes and there are millions of public servants in this country who provide a service to the public and they are having to accept pay-freezes.

Does anyone else find it utterly absurd that one of the richest women in the world is asking for more money? Personally, I think it just goes to prove how ignorantly out of touch the royal householders are with the real world. At a time when the economy is faltering and the country is facing a deep recession, when high levels of unemployment and house repossessions are likely, to ask for more money is not only insensitive, it's bloody offensive.

From the Republic:

Britain is facing serious financial challenges, people are losing their jobs, the country is getting heavily into debt, yet all the Queen can think about is grabbing more of our hard earned cash.

Suffice to say I'm relieved that the Treasury has thus far refused this ludicrous plea and what's more, I say let the royal family, as a publicly-funded organisation, go bankrupt. It's one business that this country can survive perfectly well without.

It's ok, the bolting hutches of beastliness won't become paupers overnight. They have huge personal assets, probably much more wealth than we are aware of.

And just so you know, I reject the tourism arguments.

The good news is that the Government is finally thinking of removing this unjust and embarrassing inequality.  The bad news is the legislation is only likely to be passed if the present government is elected for a fourth term, and although it is theoretically possible that pigs might fly in certain circumstances, in practice, that is extremely unlikely. Any incoming Conservative government is likely to want to forget any such proposals because first, it breaks with tradition (and in the eyes of some, tradition is always right, however immoral), secondly, the notion of all people being equal is way for too liberal for some, and thirdly, any such legislation is likely to pave the way for the eventual separation of the church and state.  Many believe that if the latter were to happen the British Isles would just sink into the sea and disappear.

The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 - reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession.  Neither Catholics nor those who marry them nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession.  The law also requires the monarch on accession to make before parliament a declaration rejecting Catholicism.

Ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but, until now, have not had the political will to risk reforming the law.  The plans for reform were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by Gordon Brown with reviewing the constitution. They are with the prime minister’s new adviser on the constitution, Wilf Stevenson.

I am an atheist.  My oldest child is a woman.  One of my best friends is a Roman Catholic, and his oldest child is a woman.  We live in a country where, should we wish to become a monarch, we would be excluded on the grounds of our religious faith and none.  If we succeeded, our oldest children could not follow us in the role because of gender.  That's absurd and immoral.

Of course, there is another absurdity - the fact that some people are given immense privilege and tax-payers' wealth just because they were born, or married into a particular family - but that's another issue.

Fifty-two percent support a republic, 40 percent do not and eight percent are undecided, the Herald/Nielsen poll of 1,400 voters showed.

The poll comes as the government and official opposition are both led by republicans for the first time in the history of this former British colony.

The Queen is Australia's literal head of state, but she represented by a Governor-General, Quentin Bryce .

Australia's feelings for a republic are nothing new. In 1999, there was a referendum, which failed, and plans for a republic were shelved.

But now there is a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who is a staunch republican.

But even he is suggesting to hold off plans for Australia to officially break away from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth until after the Queen passes away.

Opinion polls have shown that if her heir-apparent, Prince Charles, is crowned, support for a republic with an Australian head of state would surge.

"We cannot have a successful referendum on the republic during the queen's reign," Turnbull said.

"In '99, I said if you vote no it means no for a long time, and the next chance will come after the queen's reign has ended."