dead Margaret Thatcher

[Windsor 2,233]

TLC, in Australia she has the title Queen of Australia. Or so I'm led to believe. It would make sense.

According to Wikipedia (trust at your own peril) it's Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. or indeed The Queen of Australia for short.

 

As an aside: I presume Xenon II has no problems with a female monarch.

 

regards,

Hein

 

I was going to point out that in Japan and most germanic kingdoms, females were not and are not allowed to take the throne.

 

Then I stopped myself due to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Then I sort of told you by posting this. It's a funny old world.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

I was going to point out that in Japan and most germanic kingdoms, females were not and are not allowed to take the throne.

 

Then I stopped myself due to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Then I sort of told you by posting this. It's a funny old world.

My country has had a queen as head of state for more than a century. The UK, Denmark and Belgium also allow such creatures, Belgium only recently. I don't know how it is in Sweden and Norway. Does Spain count as a germanic kingdom?

 

regards,

Hein

[Windsor 2,233]

I was going to point out that in Japan and most germanic kingdoms, females were not and are not allowed to take the throne.

 

Then I stopped myself due to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Then I sort of told you by posting this. It's a funny old world.

My country has had a queen as head of state for more than a century. The UK, Denmark and Belgium also allow such creatures, Belgium only recently. I don't know how it is in Sweden and Norway. Does Spain count as a germanic kingdom?

 

regards,

Hein

 

Perhaps I should have just said Germany. By Germanic I was meaning the German states before Unification in 1871.

I think Spain had a queen once. Didn't she end up in Mexico? I don't know.

[TLC 9]

TLC, in Australia she has the title Queen of Australia. Or so I'm led to believe. It would make sense.

According to Wikipedia (trust at your own peril) it's Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. or indeed The Queen of Australia for short.

 

As an aside: I presume Xenon II has no problems with a female monarch.

 

regards,

Hein

OK, fair point, I mistakenly replied on the presumption that Xenon II had given her her full title, so I didn't check it out. It would make sense I suppose, I don't admit to having much royal knowledge.

 

Still, do Aussies refer to her as the Queen of Australia, or the Queen of England, or just the Queen? And do they think of her as their queen or someone else's queen being in charge?

 

I was aware of the referendum victory, I was just thinking that if they did (or maybe they do) think of her as the Queen of Australia she might be even more popular there? Of course if they do already then that's a bit of a non-question.

[Windsor 2,233]

TLC, in Australia she has the title Queen of Australia. Or so I'm led to believe. It would make sense.

According to Wikipedia (trust at your own peril) it's Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. or indeed The Queen of Australia for short.

 

As an aside: I presume Xenon II has no problems with a female monarch.

 

regards,

Hein

OK, fair point, I mistakenly replied on the presumption that Xenon II had given her her full title, so I didn't check it out. It would make sense I suppose, I don't admit to having much royal knowledge.

 

Still, do Aussies refer to her as the Queen of Australia, or the Queen of England, or just the Queen? And do they think of her as their queen or someone else's queen being in charge?

 

I was aware of the referendum victory, I was just thinking that if they did (or maybe they do) think of her as the Queen of Australia she might be even more popular there? Of course if they do already then that's a bit of a non-question.

 

She is not that popular. The only reason the monarchy was saved was due to a split on the Republican side. They didn't have a clear vision on what would replace her so they lost a lot of votes.

The monarchy is becoming more unpopular as the population changes. As time goes on there is less of a identity with the former 'motherland'. For some strange reason the Queen is very popular in New Zealand - or so I've heard.

 

I'd imagine that she is known as 'The Queen of England'. For some reason that title seems to stick. I'm fed up telling people off for that. (The monarch ceased to be King or Queen of England in 1707 when England ceased to be a sovereign state due to Union).

 

For the record, I believe that the Queen's title should be 'Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom etc etc' because technically a new sovereign state was formed in 1707 (technically in 1801 and 1921 as well). Thus she became the first Queen Elizabeth of the new British State. It was all just badluck with the whole title thing.

[Xenon II 0]

Sadly the Australian realm is the one where she is possibly the least popular and she is mainly referred to as just the Queen here as she would be in England. Aussies are Australian subjects of the Australian crown. Each crown is quite seperate from each other, each realm is encouraged to think of the monarch as theirs but each crown is personally united with the rest. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is 16 queens in one, Queen and head of state in each country that she rules which are known as Commonwealth Realms.

 

In Australia, there is still strong support for her though and the Prime Minister is a staunch monarchist (one of his many strengths). Most people couldn't give a flying fig about a republic or changing something that works perfectly fine as it is. Out of 16 remaining realms, SEVEN have a republiscam movement, interestingly enough including the UK and I'm presuming if the UK was to abolish the monarchy, the house of cards would come tumbling down,unless perhaps if the Queen moved to say Canada.

 

Those 7 realms that have treasonous movements to vandalize the constitution are (inc the title of the Sovereign in each):

 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

 

As you can see, these titles are all very similar. Some mention "By the Grace of God" others don't. Some mention "Defender of the Faith" others dont. A few include United Kingdom as well as the name of the realm, most don't. Besides this all are styled identically.

 

Australia - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

New Zealand - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

 

Canada - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

 

Barbados - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Barbados and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Tuvula - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Tuvalu and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Jamaica - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Jamaica and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Realms without any republicscum movement:

 

Bahamas - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Antigua and Barbuda - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Belize - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Belize and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Grenada - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Grenada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Papua New Guinea - Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Saint Christopher and Nevis - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Christopher and Nevis and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Saint Lucia - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Lucia and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

Solomon Islands - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Solomon Islands and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

 

 

I'M A MONARCHIST!

[football_fan 42]

I'M A MONARCHIST!

Well I can see that you and Windsor have something in common

[Windsor 2,233]

I'M A MONARCHIST!

Well I can see that you and Windsor have something in common

 

Right.

 

I've changed my mind. I'm a Republican now.

[Banshees Scream 110]

I've changed my mind. I'm a Republican now.

 

You were a liberal?

[Tempus Fugit 214]

.

[honez 79]

The only reason the monarchy was saved was due to a split on the Republican side. They didn't have a clear vision on what would replace her so they lost a lot of votes.

The real reason the referendum failed to get the required votes was due to the (monarchist) PM. He wrote the preamble to define the contect of the referendum and set the question itself. He was very sly in his wording, phrasing it so that the choice the people were given was pretty much "Do you want this particular model of a republic? Y/N"

The model that was offered was one of a number that were being touted as potentials, but, in my opinion, not the best or most popular option.

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

 

Had Howard asked A. Do you want a republic Y/N? B. Do you want this particular model Y/N? Australia would have been rid of QEII a long time ago.

 

Come the revolution brother...

[Xenon II 0]

The only reason the monarchy was saved was due to a split on the Republican side. They didn't have a clear vision on what would replace her so they lost a lot of votes.

The real reason the referendum failed to get the required votes was due to the (monarchist) PM. He wrote the preamble to define the contect of the referendum and set the question itself. He was very sly in his wording, phrasing it so that the choice the people were given was pretty much "Do you want this particular model of a republic? Y/N"

The model that was offered was one of a number that were being touted as potentials, but, in my opinion, not the best or most popular option.

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

 

Had Howard asked A. Do you want a republic Y/N? B. Do you want this particular model Y/N? Australia would have been rid of QEII a long time ago.

 

Come the revolution brother...

 

The real reason it failed is people could careless about the subject and no one but a few fanatical tossers see any need to fix something that's not broke. Long may the monarchy exist in Australia and long may Queen Elizabeth the 2nd reign over Australia. To get rid of the monarchy is only taking something away from Australians that many people cherish and hold dear. I still think people would look up more to a king than a queen, but hey for a woman she's done a splendid job and compared to the alternative (Charles) long may God continue to save her for us and long may Australia have a monarchist PM who values Australian history, heritage and culture and strives to preserve it!

[Xenon II 0]

I'M A MONARCHIST!

Well I can see that you and Windsor have something in common

 

My aunt lives in Toronto btw and she is a race mixer.

[honez 79]

The real reason it failed is people could careless about the subject and no one but a few fanatical tossers see any need to fix something that's not broke. ... have a monarchist PM who values Australian history, heritage and culture and strives to preserve it!

Clearly we disagree on the reason why it failed.

If no-one except a few fanatical tossers saw the need for change, then why was a (rigged) referendum required in the first place?

We also disagree on who the tossers are here.

 

And I'd agree with your last sentence if you changed the word Australian to English.

[Windsor 2,233]

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

 

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State?

[honez 79]

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State?

Absolutely. Elected by us, not one appointed by HRH as her proxy.

If we stuff it up and put some pillock in the position, at least it'll be our mistake.

[Windsor 2,233]

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State?

Absolutely. Elected by us, not one appointed by HRH as her proxy.

If we stuff it up and put some pillock in the position, at least it'll be our mistake.

 

What kind of head of State are you after?

Would it be like a US President - or would it just be like an elected Governer General?

Or doesn't it matter - as long as they are of Australian birth?

[honez 79]

The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests.

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State?

Absolutely. Elected by us, not one appointed by HRH as her proxy.

If we stuff it up and put some pillock in the position, at least it'll be our mistake.

What kind of head of State are you after?

Would it be like a US President - or would it just be like an elected Governer General?

Or doesn't it matter - as long as they are of Australian birth?

My personal preference would be for a GG type rather than President, but that's not the most important thing. I think that as a nation, we should get to decide whether we should have one foisted on us, or have one of our own choosing.

If we choose the latter, it is then that we should get to decide what kind of model would suit best and agree an orderly hand over from one to the other.

That would be the most civilised way about it, rather than the last debacle, which was akin to being asked whether you've stopped beating your wife.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

My personal preference would be for a GG type rather than President, but that's not the most important thing. I think that as a nation, we should get to decide whether we should have one foisted on us, or have one of our own choosing.

If we choose the latter, it is then that we should get to decide what kind of model would suit best and agree an orderly hand over from one to the other.

That would be the most civilised way about it, rather than the last debacle, which was akin to being asked whether you've stopped beating your wife.

There's of course also the matter of principle that a decent democracy is a republic. Not only is it firmly undemocratic that a nation doesn't get to choose its head of state, it's also undemocratic that in a monarchy the head of state has little say in her or his life and mode of employment.

 

regards,

Hein

[TLC 9]

I'M A MONARCHIST!

Well I can see that you and Windsor have something in common

 

My aunt lives in Toronto btw and she is a race mixer.

Is that your particularly polite pc way of saying she is in a mixed race relationship? And anyway, what the f*ck has your aunt in Toronto got to do with the comment you quoted above it? Whatever colour or race of the man currently pleasuring her.

 

I have come to expect your utter stupidity and bigotry in each post, but I still haven't quite grasped how you manage to outdo yourself with every single subsequent one.

[Godot 149]

TLC you need to read between the lines here. Xenon reads the Guardian, writes poetry, works in his spare time for Amnesty International, votes for the Green Party, hugs trees, eats lentils, lives with his "partner" Keith and supports AIDS charities. It's as clear as day.

[Xenon II 0]

My personal preference would be for a GG type rather than President, but that's not the most important thing. I think that as a nation, we should get to decide whether we should have one foisted on us, or have one of our own choosing.

If we choose the latter, it is then that we should get to decide what kind of model would suit best and agree an orderly hand over from one to the other.

That would be the most civilised way about it, rather than the last debacle, which was akin to being asked whether you've stopped beating your wife.

There's of course also the matter of principle that a decent democracy is a republic. Not only is it firmly undemocratic that a nation doesn't get to choose its head of state, it's also undemocratic that in a monarchy the head of state has little say in her or his life and mode of employment.

 

regards,

Hein

 

The point is Australia has clearly and freely decided to retain its monarchy. The issue has now been settled. Australia doesn't want such lunacy and it just goes to show the republicans could careless about the democratic wishes of the people that they refuse to accept the outcome of the poll and keep pushing the issue. Australia shall remain a constitutional monarchy and that is only right. If it wasn't for the fatherland there wouldn't even be an Australia and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Australia already has its own elected parliament and prime minister. That is enough already!

[Xenon II 0]

TLC you need to read between the lines here. Xenon reads the Guardian, writes poetry, works in his spare time for Amnesty International, votes for the Green Party, hugs trees, eats lentils, lives with his "partner" Keith and supports AIDS charities. It's as clear as day.

 

I don't live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland anymore so I don't read the Guardian but I am a very strong defender of the union between Great Britain and Ireland as well as the monarchy itself and right wing causes. I have wrote poetry in the past, I don't work for that group, I vote for the Liberal party in Australia (which is despite the name the Australian equivalent of the Conservative and Unionist party and is pro monarchist), I never hugged a tree, hardly ever eaten lentils, don't have a "partner", campaign against the homosexual deathstyle and AIDS is a Godsend against the wicked.

[Xenon II 0]

I'M A MONARCHIST!

Well I can see that you and Windsor have something in common

 

My aunt lives in Toronto btw and she is a race mixer.

Is that your particularly polite pc way of saying she is in a mixed race relationship? And anyway, what the f*ck has your aunt in Toronto got to do with the comment you quoted above it? Whatever colour or race of the man currently pleasuring her.

 

I have come to expect your utter stupidity and bigotry in each post, but I still haven't quite grasped how you manage to outdo yourself with every single subsequent one.

 

If you stand up for traditional family values and Biblical morality nowadays you are branded as "stupid" and "bigoted". The poster was from Toronto so I was showing I had something in common with them as well by having a relative there and I thought the fact they were in a mixed race relationship was an interesting titbit.

[honez 79]

The point is Australia has clearly and freely decided to retain its monarchy. The issue has now been settled. Australia doesn't want such lunacy and it just goes to show the republicans could careless about the democratic wishes of the people that they refuse to accept the outcome of the poll and keep pushing the issue.

You appear to have totally missed the point of my earlier posts. Australia voted to retain its status quo over one republican model. This was the only unpalatable choice offered by the PM. And not by much either.

Australia in no way stated (or was offered) the choice of becoming a republic over a constitutional monarchy. If we were given that one choice, the result would have been a resounding yes in favour of standing on our own minus the foreign monarchy.

You seem to think the issue has ben settled once and for all because of the rigged referendum. Thankfully I doubt that this is case.