Commonwealth “Reforms” ~ a blurb

For the royalists, yesterday was a celebration. The Commonwealth had resolved that any first-born child, regardless of sex, can succeed the throne. This certainly was celebratory among the “liberal” royalists, who pose as champions of democracy and equality while ironically supporting an institution that was, is and will remain neither. To make things even more hilarious, they also allowed members of the royal family to marry Catholics. Despite these “changes”, what remains is the same: a monarchy, and that of Britain’s. Don’t get me wrong. Even if we had our own monarchy, I would still oppose it. It also is bizarre to have the matters of the head of state of one nation be determined by other nations, including those with a republican form of government. According to reason, never mind law, something like that would be called an international incident, to meddle in the affairs of another country, like Harper did during the American presidential election in 2008, when he leaked information on what Obama said about NAFTA, costing the Obama a primary. That’s meddling in the business and politics of another country. Why should the matters of the head of state of one country be determined by another? How the hell is that independence?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s