I just have to post my favourite Queen Lizzie joke here. Heritis -

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard was in England meeting the Queen at Balmoral. They were discussing Australia and Howard's plans for the future.

Howard asked the queen if it was possible to turn Australia into a Kingdom to increase its force in the world market. The Queen replied, "One needs a King for a Kingdom and you are most certainly not a King."

He then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into an Empire. The Queen replies, "For an Empire one needs an Emperor you are most certainly not an Emperor."

Howard thinks for a moment and then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into a principality. The Queen replies, "For a principality one needs a Prince and you Mr. Howard are certainly not a prince."

The Queen adds further, "Without meaning to be rude Mr. Howard I think Australia should remain as a country."

Rainier,
Don’t quite understand the joke. Personally I can’t see why Australia should not become a republic, but I can see good reasons why Australia should be in the Commonwealth, because of the lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries (which combined have about 30% of the world’s population).

This must be one of the greatest diplomatic successes in the modern world, in contrast to one other non-Commonwealth country that was once closely associated with Britain, but now spends more on its armed forces then the next 26 countries combined, and has bombed more countries than most people can remember.

I attribute this lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries to the influence of the Queen and the Westminster system. As a part of this the Queen would not be able to display much bias (or emotion) towards any one country within the Commonwealth, but treat all Commonwealth countries on an equal footing. Some others in the royal family have done almost nothing for others, although they have been in the press on innumerable occasions, but normally reporting on their own (and often traumatic) personal lives, and not much else.

However what is your opinion for the reasons for this lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries, and could it be extended to other countries.

Timkins, I appreciate your honesty at admitting you don't get rainier's joke. I'll provide a hint

C yoU Next Tuesday (please let this one by Graham)

As for the queen - wouldn't want her job or her money.

Another interesting article Helen - keep 'em coming.

Cheers dears

Umm, is it not allowed to create a new post? And does a user have to comment on a particular article?

Ringtail,
I’m fully aware of Rainier’s joke. There is a whole series of them, but I’m more interested in how the Commonwealth countries have avoided conflict (between each other at least). In this regard, the Commonwealth of countries have been much more successful than say the UN, or even the EU.

The Queen has been a primary facilitator and diplomat within the Commonwealth, and as an academic, Rainier could more fully analyse the Queen’s role and the methods she has used, and provide an opinion, instead of providing rather old jokes about it

The Queen has certainly been a stabilising influence in the nations of the Commonwealth, as her position is not appointment by popular opinion. Popular opinion would probably have preferred Diana.

Appointments by popular opinion displease half the population who do not prefer the elected President eg George Bush USA. A head of state that does not fire the emotions with passions of support, or passions of displeasure for being on the opposite side of politics will give a more stable system of Government. I am not sure how we could have a better system than we already have under the sovereign head of Australia, representing the interests of all people independent of politics against despotic rulers and opressive laws.