Free book
Recent comments
- Dear MMB33, Just so readers
2 hours 8 min ago - From MMB33 You tried to block
2 hours 54 min ago - Where to start...
You do not
14 hours 37 min ago - You do not need to be
14 hours 45 min ago - Savage isn't acting like a
16 hours 14 min ago - I keep thinking I need to
16 hours 19 min ago - "Kate has helped an NZ
19 hours 30 min ago - Not sure how that's relevant.
23 hours 45 min ago - Savage you sound very
2 days 16 min ago - Kate has helped an NZ
2 days 46 min ago
Recent blogs
- RIP Derek Round
- Kate's lack of pregnancy our fault?
- Kingitanga symposium on constitutional review
- "Republics are vulnerable to the desires of the powerful"
- Jamaica: republic legislation a priority
- Changes to our constitution announced in the UK
- Democracy; another way to choose the head of state
- "Opposition just as bad, so don't cry to the Queen"
- Jamaica: Speech from the non-existent throne
- Another Oaths Amendment Bill




Comments
I agree with the move to change the Constitutional Monarchy's succession law because i believe in the rights of equally between male and females and i think that we are now in an age where females should have as much rights to the throne as males, look at out Queen now, she is more than satisfactory and i think that a person's capability to uphold that kind of duty cannot by determined by their gender. I do think however, that the Government needs a mandate to change this law because democracy demands this as part of being the country that we are.
Indeed. Like changes to the budget, changes to the succession ought to be included in any policy program. But they won't be of course, because the Government doesn't want to look like it's wasting time on irrelevant issues...