Celebrate while you can - the Windsors will be history soon

Daily Mail ^ | 07/28/2013 | Peter Hitchens

[SeekAndFind]

Why does everyone assume that the royal baby born last week will one day become King? It seems most unlikely to me that the British Monarchy will last that long.

I am a keen monarchist myself and am sorry that an institution I love and revere is dying. But there is no point in pretending things are better than they are.

What actually holds it up? All the major parties long ago drove the hereditary nobles from the House of Lords. They implicitly accepted that inheritance didn’t entitle anyone to any office. It is only a matter of time before that logic takes its final step.

[Cronos]

She could have done what King Baudouin of Belgium did in 1990 -- when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens, liberalising Belgium's abortion laws, was approved by Parliament, he refused to give Royal Assent to the bill. Royal Assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions, Baudouin asked the Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law

According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfills the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.

Not the best, but he kept his personal honor

[bmwcyle]

The should have done it years ago.

[Gaffer]

I read where England will be majority Muslim by 2053. It is conceivable that the new heir may become king, but he will be the last Monarch will ever have unless you consider a Muslim Imamocracy a Monarchy.

England did this to herself allowing all those third worlders from former Empire colonies to become British Citizens. Now, they can’t even control that. A large portion of these people go on public sustainment immediately. More children are being born now with the name “Mohammed” than any other. It is just a matter of time.

[Durus]

The British nobility funded the Russian “revolution”. Socialism was the new tool for totalitarian rule as Divine rule was becoming harder and harder to sell.

[EternalVigilance]

“But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.”

—Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

[Vanders9]

I agree, with the codicil that the default social position for Humanity is not so much Monarchism as Oligarchies. They are not quite the same thing.

[Vanders9]

How very egalitarian of you. Tell me, how would you remove all their wealth (their personal wealth incidentally) without also setting up a precedent for removing anyones wealth, at anytime, for no other reason than “fairness”?