A History of the Future
Re: A History of the Future
A comment on the Kingdom of Canada thing, I can't see how there could possibly be any change in the status of the monarchy in Canada that isn't abolishing it. My understanding is that the commonwealth states only keep the institution of the monarch around because the monarchy isn't actually very important on a day-to-day basis, and because people like tradition. If the monarch is active enough that some people would like to see it changed, why wouldn't the republicanist impulse that already exists in Canada become widespread enough to do away with the monarchy entirely?
con quesa- firm believer in the right of Spanish cheese to be female if she so chooses
"There's nothing inherently different between knowing who Venusaur is and knowing who Lady Macbeth is" -Xephyr
"There's nothing inherently different between knowing who Venusaur is and knowing who Lady Macbeth is" -Xephyr
Re: A History of the Future
No need for a library - have a look here.
- Twpsyn Pentref
- Lebom
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: that other Cambridge
Re: A History of the Future
Is the name of your blog misspelled intentionally? It bugs me.
So take this body at sunset to the great stream whose pulses start in the blue hills, and let these ashes drift from the Long Bridge where only a late gull breaks that deep and populous grave.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A History of the Future
Well, I'm not a Canadian - but in the UK, the fact that we don't want the monarchy playing a major role doesn't mean that we don't care about who the monarch is. Rumour has it, for instance, that Charles may have to refuse the crown - certainly there'll be very great unrest if his wife is allowed to be called 'queen consort' (just as she's currently not allowed to be 'princess of wales'). If his mother had died shortly after Diana, I think he would have had to refuse the crown or have the monarchy overthrown - not due to dislike of the monarchy but due to dislike of HIM. I think it's plausible for a country to refuse to have a monarch it considers 'anti' that country, while still wanting a monarchy.con quesa wrote:A comment on the Kingdom of Canada thing, I can't see how there could possibly be any change in the status of the monarchy in Canada that isn't abolishing it. My understanding is that the commonwealth states only keep the institution of the monarch around because the monarchy isn't actually very important on a day-to-day basis, and because people like tradition. If the monarch is active enough that some people would like to see it changed, why wouldn't the republicanist impulse that already exists in Canada become widespread enough to do away with the monarchy entirely?
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: A History of the Future
Yes, it is. I thought I said so somewhere on it, but it seems not. Anyway, it's a common mistake I make, and I included as an intentional metavain self-mockery. I might change it some day, I suppose.Twpsyn Pentref wrote:Is the name of your blog misspelled intentionally? It bugs me.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!