Ah, the way Tom Paine writes.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it; otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.
Seems appropriate, given the news that England is revising its laws of hereditary tyranny, allowing first-born females to tyrannize equally with first-born males. The arc of history is very, very long.
2 Comments
What are you, a moron? You do know that there’s this guy called a Prime Minister now? You’re complaining about this over 300 years after the Glorious Revolution? Tell me how is a queen or a king for that matter going to impose tyranny in a way that a PM can’t?
David, I may well be a moron, but not so moronic as to accept Kate Middleton’s baby as my permanent lord and liege, with “reserve power” to remove unilaterally that prime minister of which you speak, simply because they are in a direct line of primogeniture from “ass for a lion” Charles. Talk about a farce, and moronism defined. If the queen is just a little show for the tourists then fine, strip her of all her powers, get her off the money, take away her pension and let her get to her real calling of running a tourist trap out in Kensington. Why would you not? Because you actually want the queen or king to have the power to remove prime ministers? and dissolve parliament? Not to mention their gross and disgusting privilege, which is offense enough to all decent men.