Yes I read it - even started to write a reply to you, but in the end thought i would not, as I didnt know enough to follow it through! (I admit it!!)
Anyway, now returned here - and saw your note (above)
Oh well, I guess i will have to say something..... I will just say its something of a connundrum (the way the queen and a country's constitution works). When she is their queen, supposedly she DOES have the ultimate authority - as head of state - although her power is delegated to others - but that is then (supposedly) balanced by her coronation oath - meaning the people have the ultimate, ultimate authority! Very muddled, no wonder I am finding the issue difficult to get to grips with. What is quite clear to me, whether there is a monarch or not, the issue of who is in charge - and how much power is in their hands will remain - whether it be an elected politician (god forbid!!) or down to ones birthright. Certainly both options have their downsides - but I think the british/ commonwealth approach works well as long as the monarch acts responsibly. That's all.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks

Reply With Quote






Bookmarks