The British Monarchy

aussiejohn said:
Sadly not.

Many Australians (mostly the older and conservative generations) are comfortable staying with the Monarchy. They can't see a good enough reason to change.

It will take some years but Australia will become a republic one day.
Click to expand...
Same for Britain hopefully ;)
 
Britian is basicly like America except they consider thier Head of State to be the Queen. However they basicly run like America in the end, the Prime Minister calls the shots in the end.
 
Airborne said:
Australia is practically a republic anyway... what's so different with the 'republican' model?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make a lot of difference in an everyday practical sense but think of it this way, how would you feel about the legal head of state of the US being the Queen of England and not George Bush? (maybe you would think that was OK!)

The Governor General is the legal regal head of state (the Queens Representative) of Australia, appointed by the Queen. He is usually reccommended by the Australian Prime Minister (legal buffs will argue over who is actually the had of state!). Each state of Australia has their own Governor ( a Queen Appointment). They do mostly ceremonial stuff.

in 1975 a Federal Government was dismissed by the Governor General and General Election was called when the opposition parties blocked supply (money bills ) in the Senate. The Government lost the election.

We have a High Court which is the last word on legal matters in this country but not that long ago things in dispute could still go the Privy Council in England to be dealt with.

I'll talk about the republic models put up some other time. It gets a bit involved.
 
That seems alot like America, However The Govenors hear rule the states and are elected, The Supreme Court is called upon every now in then for major matters, and the President normaly has the support of the House and of the Senete with him so they normaly don't have bills just sitting thier.



However I wish i could find the exact numbers on the % of people who think the Monarch should end with QE2's death.


Btw isn't she married to sumone new I thought I read that somewhere during that whole Germany visit.
 
No, I wouldn't want the queen as soverign due to a little thing called the American Revolution; however, as the Declaration of Independance even points out, long established governemnts shouldn't just be tossed aside because of fads, we had very legit reasons (life and death/ public welfare) for wanting to get rid of the monarchy.... seems like you just want to jump on the republican fad. I mean, if I was born into a good republic, I would stick to Republicanism. If I was in your position, I would stick to the throne. It's not like she's beenmasacred catholics down in the basement.
 
Airborne said:
No, I wouldn't want the queen as soverign due to a little thing called the American Revolution; however, as the Declaration of Independance even points out, long established governemnts shouldn't just be tossed aside because of fads, we had very legit reasons (life and death/ public welfare) for wanting to get rid of the monarchy.... seems like you just want to jump on the republican fad. I mean, if I was born into a good republic, I would stick to Republicanism. If I was in your position, I would stick to the throne. It's not like she's beenmasacred catholics down in the basement.
Click to expand...

It's no fad mate! ( I am not thinking about purchasing an MP3!)I have spent about 30 years of my life (on and off) discussing and debating this topic with others.

The two models put up at our referendum both retained both houses of parliament (Senate & House of Reps). There would still be a Prime Minister, the leader of the party controlling the House of Reps.

The main difference is that instead of a Governor General (the Queen's man), there would now be an elected President with no connection to the British Monarchy.

One model proposed to have the President elected by a popular vote by the people. The other proposed to have the President elected by a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting both houses of Parliament (I think I got this right!).

As you can see the changes would not have been major. The day to day running of the government would not really change. Its very much symbolic (many would disagree unfortunately!).

The US model was rejected very early on. Too radical a change.

Howard kept out of the debate but many knew which way he wanted the referendum to go. He made a few "smart" comments every now and then which muddied the waters.

Having two proposals put up also confused the issue and split the vote.
 
Selections from the American Declaration of Independance

WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
Click to expand...

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes
Click to expand...

It really sounds to me like you guys are just wooed by the rebublican fad... shit, communism had the same effect in the early 20th century, Capitalism in the 18th century,as Socialism is now.... people have a tendency of not completely thinking thinkings out, going instead with the flow... remember, as powerful and graceful as a tsunami may be, it's going to adventually break land and quickly lose itself in a thunderous collapse.

Man has exsisted under many forms of government of every stripe and color.... some were good, some were bad. There may be intrinsic positive or negative qualities about a certain ideological format, but it's really more or less the quality of the people living in that society who decide if it's going to be a good or bad. America was in a hard place when we made the decision to break, and as you can see from the quotes above, we really thought it out and gave the king every benifit of the doubt. That's perhaps why we're ironically the one nation of English decent still the most English culturally and ideologically; we were British citizen's happy to be British, just wasn't working with pappa back on the throne.
 
i like them because it separates the figurehead from the power, which can be a dangerous thing (dictators, some presidents etc) that siad, i think australia needs its own figurehead
this is why i was in favour of the last referendum down here, you had the president, who is hte figurehead, and the PM who ran the country
the royals serve thier purpose, which is to provide something for british people to look up to and adore, which lets face it, they do!(dont we all!!)
 
well, my understanding is that most people within the UK feeling pretty strongly about the royals

and lets face it, they are a rather progressive bunch, they could be a heck of a lot worse
 
They Probably could be alot worse however in todays day in age it realy doesn't matter that much what they do cause they basicly have no Political Power.
 
thats exactly right, as i said they are the head of state, not the head of government. this is a very common thing, in fact america is rather unique when it comes to having thier head of state and the head of guvernment beig one and the same.
its interesting being by being the head of state, they often have a fanatical following, which can lead to big headedness and the belief that they can do anything without reprecussions, because thier people love them so much. the being head of state gives them the following and support, and the head of governemtn gives them the ability to act.
as i have siad, this can be dangerous and the two should be separated as a safeguard
 
??? And how exactly would we do that? The VP is the president of the Senate.... I guess that's sort of the division your suggesting.
 
Well it's quite standard for Royal Family boys to join the military isn't it? Or else what else would they wear at the dinner parties? lol.

I say keep it. Saves the effort of explaining to children what Princes, Princesses and Kings and Queens are while reading a fairy tale. lol. Hopefully Prince William won't be a disappointment like Charles (in all fairness I think he got s****ed over) or his party crazed brother.

Shadowalker said:
I do think that the majority of the royals should have proper jobs rather than just live off the queens and taxpayers money. But the queen, her sons and princes william and harry i can understand not working as they are more well known and do have some useful functions and it looks like harry and possibly william will be joining the military.
Click to expand...
 
airborne, i do not know enough about america to suggest how you would separate the two roles

lol @ royals having nothing to wear to dinner parties, lest they break social faux pas!
 
I would see the Monarchy regaining some of its former power although still being checked by a parliament, a parliament elected by the our countries elites!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top