2000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0318  Tuesday, 15 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 14 Feb 2000 10:43:22 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0308 Re: Intellectual Property

[2]     From:   Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Feb 2000 05:41:34 -0500
        Subj:   Intellectual Property

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 14 Feb 2000 10:43:22 -0800
Subject: 11.0308 Re: Intellectual Property
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0308 Re: Intellectual Property

John Briggs writes:

>The point I was trying to make was
>that the (unwritten) British constitution evolved to a
>nineteenth-century form, but was unable to develop further because of
>the presence of the monarchy and the (unelected) House of Lords, despite
>the fact that neither had real power.

As a side-note, I understand that the first Labour budget was brought in
by playing the monarchy off against the Lords.  In this case, the
monarchy seemed to be the sponsor, rather than the inhibitor, of
democratic reform.

By the way, most commonwealth countries have had or continue to have an
elected monarchy and an unelected upper chamber.  In most, though, it
doesn't particularly stop constitutional reform, which in the Canadian
case, has been held up for other reasons.

Cheers,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.