"The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth."
Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon <gray...@marost.ca> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights >> that can't be taken away, > > No one says any such thing. > > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign > it.) > > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. > > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is > really laughable. > > -- Graydon > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
