To the Gentlemen and Ladies of the United States of America
There are times in the life of nations when it becomes necessary to overthrow and replace a system of governance that has manifestly failed. I have to put it to you that such a time has now arrived in the history of the United States.
Two hundred and thirty years ago you embarked on a great and noble experiment of self government using a system of checks and balances to ensure that the wrongs you percieved to be caused by a King, rather than his ministers operating in their own interests during his periods of illness, would not recur and your grievances about the presumed unjust nature of your representation with His Late Majesty could be resolved.
I regret to state that it is now my belief the actions of diverse rogues, liars and malfeasors have so perverted the governance of the United States that a fundamental re-appraisal is now due to ensure that the ancient rights of free born Englishmen, which you asserted in 1766, should be preserved. This situation is so dire that, to paraphrase your Mr Lincoln (who is still much admired for his abolition of slavery, albeit several decades after the measure came into effect in the Empire). Government of the People, By the People and (above all) for the people has perished in your land.
It would appear that the current perilous position your country finds itself in is to a large part due to the decision to vest the powers of head of state, head of Government and commander of the armed forces in one person elected for a fixed period. By its nature, this vests undue importance in the person so chosen and stiffles criticism of manifest faults and failures in an incumbent, particulary the current one. The dangers of the potental abuse of power has been recognised in most other democracies worthy of the name and most separate the functions of head of state and government to a greater or lesser extent. I suggest that in re-appraising these it would be appropriate to examine the workings of modern constitutional monarchies, free of the propaganda of those who misrepresented their grivances as being over a beverage whereas the actions of 1766 were precipitated by lawyers and others discontent with a tax on printed materials. Unfortunately this misrepresentation has entered into your national myth and has colored your understanding of the nature of modern monachy. I put it to you that a return to having the British Monarch as your head of state would have great advantages to the ordinary people and provide your administrations with far wiser counsel that is currently exercised by persons who sole interests are their self agrandisement and increase in their own wealth.
However arcane a hereditary monarchy may seem, the holders of the office are trained from their earliest years in a fundamental truth that is forgotten by here today gone tomorrow politicians or when they do remember, conceal it from the people. That is that a people can only be governed by those they consent to be governed by. However high their status or office may be, they are the servants of the People for whose benefit they should act responsibly, justly and for the good of all not the few. The current Queen is an exemplar of this, having served in the armed forces during WWII and being propelled to the throne by the early death of her father when she was in her early 20s. On hearing she was queen, she made a personal oath to serve her people and, for all her foibles and some failings, has used her best endeavours to do so.
Now at 80 she is not as wide a traveller as she used to be although it must be said that the duties she does perform would leave George Bush in need of a week’s vacation after one day’s work. An obvious solution would be to have her successor as resident viceroy for part of the year although modern telecommunications and the usual arrangement of Governors General would more than suffice. The armed forces, security and police services would be norminally headed by her rather than the elected president who would retain the powers as head of government (the oath is to swear “true allegiance to our sovereign Lady and her heirs and successors under law”)
There are other advantages of course. You would be members of the Commonwealth and would exercise rather more international “soft” influence than currently with the use of “hard” diplomacy (ie war!) You are currently precluded from membership as only part of your country was previously a colony (interestingly, Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Egypt could be members if they wished) Membership does however require that certain qualifications like good governance and respect for human rights are generally observed (hmmm…) Tour athletes might find the ethos of the Commonwealth Games (AKA “The Friendly Games”) somewhat different from the distinctly un-Corinthean stance they usually adopt at the Olympics.
Betty would of course not be the “British” queen in North America. As with the Canadians, she would be titled Queen of the United States of America. When Mr Shaw wrote his comedic play “The Apple Cart” positing a revocation of the Declaration of Independence he speculated that the mere title of King or Queen would not be felt sufficiently important by Americans and that there would be pressure to re-assume the title of Empress even if this was only previously used in respect of India. Since then however there has been an actual example of a colony returning to its former status after declaring independence. Although subsequent history under majority rule has proved chequered to say the least, the procedure used for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe does provide a precedent. What happened was the minority white government revoked its declaration, returned to colony status and then independence was granted on the basis of a new agreed constitution (since much altered) One perhaps sticking point is that in other former colonies where (mostly white) immigrants far outnumbered indigenous peoples, the first nations have considerably more protection than has previously been accorded in the USA.
(Partly inspired by Seattle Cris’s Diary on the orange one.)
