In an article published on September 26th 2006 in The Guardian, Jeremy Paxman quotes this comparison, made almost a century earlier, by the ?mildly republican? Spanish princess Eulalia, when asked what the British people would gain by becoming a Republic:
Sommaire de la fiche
Extraits de la fiche
[...] There is no written constitution, there are no common values between communities that have often been set next to each other in the name of ?multiculturalism?, but who often don't share any common ground they can relate to. This communitarism, this lack of a common set of values, myths and Ideals, automatically puts forward the monarchy, as a symbol and institution everyone can relate to. I think this is what the article by Jeremy Paxman most clearly shows: though his logic indicates him that the monarchy has no real reason for existence any more, he feels that its persistence must be explained. But does he explain it right? [...]
[...] As the episode of the State Opening of Parliament shows every year, most of what the monarch does or of what is done is his name is in fact not his own. Each fall, the Queen is required to read out the speech written by the own who is still technically referred to as her Prime minister, lining out the program of her government for the legislature. It is the time of a kind of comedy where she pretends to still wield the executive power in the country. [...]
À propos de l'auteur
Arnaud D.PhilosophieThe Zoo Must Go On ? Must It ?