The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Queen' Camilla of Australia - no thanks! > Comments

'Queen' Camilla of Australia - no thanks! : Comments

By Peter van Vliet, published 29/3/2005

Peter van Vliet argues King Charles and Queen Camilla should never rule in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Clutching at semantic straws, Peter van Vliet declares that the republic is unfinished business. Some people just won't take no for an answer, will they. Changing your constitution because you don't like someone's wedding arrangements would be comical if it wasn't put forward as a serious suggestion.

On of the great things about our monarchy is that it keeps us in touch with the other countries of the British family, especially New Zealand, Canada and the UK. The sad thing about republican thinking is that it wants us to cut those ties in favour of an essentially small-minded and parochial view of the world.

I see no problem with having Charles as my King, and I see no problem with having Camilla as my Queen. I'd certainly like it if members of the royal family visited more often, but Charles was rebuffed when he wanted to be our Governor-General, so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 12:55:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let us pause and ask the question, who will benefit from a constitutional change? One group immediately springs to mind, the legal profession. New areas of law should open up. Disputes on constitutional matters will inevitably become a growth industry. Legal incomes will reach new and records heights, which implies greater tax revenue for the nation.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 1:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much ado about nothing. As much as I am not a fan (q.v.) of Prof. Flint, he is correct when he points out that Charles' wife, whoever she might be, has no constitutional impact on Australia. This marriage should therefore be of no consequence to the people of Australia except in the matter of boosting the sales of women's magazines.

More important however is the fact that by clutching at this particular straw, Mr Van Vliet does the republican cause no favours, simply adding to the impression that the arguments to change are getting ever weaker. Which would be a shame. This kind of hysterical non-reasoning and thought-free rant becomes a substitute for rational pro-republic debate, to the detriment of the entire campaign.

And by the way anti-green, when you point out that "Legal incomes will reach new and records heights, which implies greater tax revenue for the nation" you forget that it is an act of faith amongst the legal profession that they trouble our tax collectors as little as possible.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 3:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Britain is no longer relevant to a modern Australia, nor does it care much for us, except when it serves the British agenda. Of course, there was a time when, We, Australians, were mesmerized in our allegiance to Empire. But, the days of the Coo-ee March into the hand of an irresponsible Winston Churchill have now past.

In WWII, the same Britain, said Australia could fall to invasion (and be taken back later). The same Britain that turned its back on the Commonwealth by entering the then Common Market, the same Britain that after feeling backwash from being sent to Conventry over the the Suez Crisis leaned on Australia for help with the development of its nuclear weapons, after the US said, "no"! The same Britain rushed to the Faulklands, but, did not contribute to the War in Vietnam, when it was (wrongly) thought there would be a "Domino Effect" all the way to our shores.

In consideration of the above, and, the fact it has been over one hundred years since Federation and that increasingly Australians are not of British descent (I am) and that we have close ties, with the more bilaterally reliable and powerful United States, defies reason, as to why any Australian prefers a British Head-of-State over an Australian Head-of-State. I can assure you no Brit would accept the Island Realm under a foreign Head-of-State living in Normandy in France.

The only benefit in constitutional monarchary is that it provides a check on wayward politicians. Herein, there are alternative ways to achieve this end. My preference is not for a simple election for President, because the Public mandate creates conflict with the Parliament and the political parties will run for that Office.

Perhaps, a model, having three nominees created by a two-thirds majority of the Senate to be put for subsequent appraisal and selection by limited election by the Public.

The Koreans have a saying which begs the question: "Is it better to be the tail of an ox or the head of chicken"? I for one don't wish Australia to be a chicken's tail feather.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 1:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NO a thousand times NO to"Queen Camilla". Anyone who sneaks around and breaks up a marriage, ruining the life of the lovely Diana is a harlot, and not worthy of the title of Queen and the respect that title demands.

No to an elected President. All we'll get is one more politician,and we have enough already. Make the Governor-General our Head of State. Call him "President" if you will, and elect him by 2/3 vote of both Houses from, as suggested above, say 2 or 3 candidates. But let his duties be the same as the GG, as far as practible, with as little change to the running of the nation as possible.

The present system has worked well up until the "good example" component of the Royal Family has been replaced by bad example in spades. I am sick of the Royal shenanagans, but I don't like Malcom Turnbull and his cohorts either. I think we have to take a long-term view, and we have more pressing problems for the time being.
Thanks for nothing Charles! Why of why didn't the Queen nip Camilla in the bud in the early 80's?
Posted by Big Al 30, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 4:24:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old Prince Charles has been one of the best behaved Royals in history. Only one mistress! (If you donít count the butler!) His ancestors would have been rolling in their graves. Especially now that heís going to marry it!

The Charles and Camilla story is the ultimate love story 30 years in the making. Two young people fall in love, but due to circumstances cannot be together. This love remains strong for 30 years, during which they both marry others (in Charlesí case, a psychopath), then, against opposition from all quarters, they decide to seal their love in marriage. Iíve got a tear in my eye just thinking about it.

Of course we should not have the British Monarch as our head of state. Not because of the Royal family, not because of Camilla, not because of our ethnic mix, but because we are an independent, proud and strong nation and an Australian republic is the next step in our growth. I think that using the fact that Camilla will be our Queen diminishes the argument for an Australian Head of State; as if we should base such an important decision on the fact that Camilla is hideous beyond words, and a vague feeling that she is not a nice person. Itís the sort of argument used when one has run out of arguments.

Ian, I take your point, but we can still be in the Commonwealth of Nations whilst being a republic if that is what we wish.

Having a popularly elected Head of State is definitely the wrong way to go. People who support an elected Head say that it is the only way to ensure a non-political Head. I canít see their reasoning. There is no surer way of having a political Head of State than the people electing one. The Libs would put forward their choice, the Socialists theirs, and TV Week would put forward the peoples choice. Our first Head of State would be either John Howard, Gough Whitlam or John Farnham.. Elected by two thirds of Parliament is the sensible course.
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 5:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy