You remind me of Puerto Rican independence activists that decry Puerto Rico's Commonwealth as "undemocratic".
Regardless of how the U.S. acquired control of Puerto Rico in 1898, the fact remains that, in the 21st Century, Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status has been repeatedly validated by Puerto Rico's voters in free elections.
If the Puerto Rican independence activists want full independence, all they have to do is to get the majority of Puerto Rican voters to agree with them and the Republic of Puerto Rico with be born with the blessing of the U.S.
Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the Puerto Rican voters, it is not "undemocratic".
If you want a Republic of Great Britain, all you need to do is to get the majority of British voters to agree with you and vote themselves a Republic.
Until then, the British Monarchy may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the British voter, it is not "undemocratic".
“You remind me of Puerto Rican independence activists that decry Puerto Rico’s Commonwealth as “undemocratic”
I wonder why that is because I haven’t declared any commonwealth to be ‘undemocratic’. A very strange comparison at best.
“If you want a Republic of Great Britain, all you need to do is to get the majority of British voters to agree with you and vote themselves a Republic.”
Well here’s to stating the obvious.
“Until then, the British Monarchy may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the British voter, it is not “undemocratic”.
The fact is it was never voted into existence in the first place by any democratic standard.
My point was not specifically rhw ‘British Monarchy’ - which is why I didn’t refer to it like that in the first place, it was the the very institution of a ‘monarchy’.
So you’re onto a loser there as well I’m afriad.