Liz in Oz

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:05 am

so, all our Aussie ( and Brit) friends here, what is your opinion? .............Crikey! Is she really our queen?

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:18 pm

Only the Aussies can decide this one. It would seem odd the other way round if our Queen spent most of her time in Australia. The whole idea of the Queen ruling the Commonwealth is something I find odd in a modern world. At the end of the day, she's only an historical figurehead with no real clout or power, so the lives of Aussies,Brits and others are unaffected either way. Maybe a change will come with a King.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:32 pm

Uncle Kram wrote: Only the Aussies can decide this one. It would seem odd the other way round if our Queen spent most of her time in Australia. The whole idea of the Queen ruling the Commonwealth is something I find odd in a modern world. At the end of the day, she's only an historical figurehead with no real clout or power, so the lives of Aussies,Brits and others are unaffected either way. Maybe a change will come with a King.

I agree. I guess there's 2 factions in Australia. The Republicans and those who want to hang on to the 'heritage' side of things. Haven't they had a referendum recently ??...may be wrong.

While the Queen IS the head of state, I think they should have compromised and supported BOTH the National Anthem, and their own anthem they adopted in the 80s. It will be interesting to see what our Australian friends think.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:03 pm

There was a referendum - but it was cleverly managed. While most of Australia clearly supported sacking the British royal family, they were divided as to what kind of Head of State replacement we should have and this was the exploitable weakness. This and the fact that most Aussies don't really care that much (those royals are remote from real life here), know how costly change can be and we have better things to do with our money. It somehow just doesnt seem worth all the effort. I think the Brit royals know they're not that popular here and keep a pretty low profile. (They learnt something from getting their a%%3s kicked the heck outta America).

As mrsK says, if Charlie ever gets to be King, our apathy might evaportate.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:08 pm

HA Bothwell!! one more colony about to revolt...there's always pitcairn. :p :wah:

Jcas · Post by **Jcas** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:05 pm

Guess i'm a royalist, enjoy the visits etc. although costly. If they didn't spend it on royal visits the government would find something else, eg. put it into horse racing etc.

And charles as king...does that mean Camilla would be queen?..........Hmmmmmmmm............sounds a bit stuffy to me ...lol:-6 :-6

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:48 pm

Jcas wrote: Guess i'm a royalist, enjoy the visits etc. although costly. If they didn't spend it on royal visits the government would find something else, eg. put it into horse racing etc.

And charles as king...does that mean Camilla would be queen?..........Hmmmmmmmm............sounds a bit stuffy to me ...lol:-6 :-6

Camilla won't ever be Queen. She will be the Princess Consort.

Edited to add: Nothing is a certainty. Apparently, with a big enough fight,

things could change.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:57 am

I think the highest ranking royal would be Princess Anne, however Camilla can be queen but I think it would take a change in constitutional law, something that the "Windsors" (aka the german royal family) know all about!

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:42 pm

valerie wrote: Camilla won't ever be Queen. She will be the Princess Consort.

Edited to add: Nothing is a certainty. Apparently, with a big enough fight,

things could change.

Camilla Queen?

Gunpowder, Gelatine

Dynamite

With a laser beam

Guaranteed to blow your mind

Anytime......

deckard · Post by **deckard** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:38 pm

Charles as King ! I think he will be missed out somehow and Prince William will become our King for the 21st century. We will see some changes then with more involvement in how our country is run. Prince William will want to be involoved watch out for him!

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:00 pm

Nobless oblige, I suppose. I'm fairly busy already, but I guess could take on one more little burden - Queen Pamela.. not bad!! I'd have big bronzed aussie lifeguards as me courtiers, and look after me mates. All ForumGarden good guys would get free flights Down Under, a complimentary surf board and beach pass.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:04 pm

AussiePam wrote: Nobless oblige, I suppose. I'm fairly busy already, but I guess could take on one more little burden - Queen Pamela.. not bad!! I'd have big bronzed aussie lifeguards as me courtiers, and look after me mates. All ForumGarden good guys would get free flights Down Under, a complimentary surf board and beach pass.I have a better idea...........

Attached files

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:24 pm

Grin. Okay Abbey!

Seriously though, what kind of Republic Australia should become, and what sort of Head of State we should have - are difficult problems on their own.

Do we fuse the Prime Minister with the Head of State into one President along the American line or keep politics out of it and have a Head whose sole duty (apart from ceremonial stuff) is to be the guardian of our Constitution - to keep the politicians honest in fact. A lot of Aussies, while **** scared of the former idea, supported the latter idea (the Irish model) but then were divided as to how such a Head of State should be appointed.

Then there is our Constitution itself. It is in fact legislation passed by the British Parliament and is deliberately ordered so changes are well nigh impossible. The Founding Fathers wanted it to be bloody difficult, so no frivolous changes could be forced through.

Of 44 proposals only 8 changes have got through - mostly about the Senate or State debt. The last change was in 1977. The only 'interesting' one was in 1967 when Australia decided Aborigines were people and should be entitled to vote! So the cards are stacked against change.

I don't know enough about the Canadian system to know how they cope with this.

The Australian Governments have always been a bit crafty - and have found other ways to get some extra federal powers for themselves at the expense of state powers. This has usually been achieved by using a power given to them in the Constitution to make laws regarding our relations with overseas countries. As conflicting legit Commonwealth laws trump State laws, using the foreign affairs power to sign treaties on stuff the Commonwealth wouldnt normally have had powers over, now means they do - like making laws regarding equal opportunities in the workplace frinstance.

In practice, the only changes Australia will ever get via Referendums to change the Constitution need to be of the 'motherhood is good' variety - issues that get almost 100% support - like giving the Abos a fair go. So we're going to be stuck with the Queen at least.