Given Australia's Prime Minitser has apologised for the poor treatment of indineous Australias? Should Queen Elizabeth II apologise for the Crown's treatment of Convicts, the Slave Trade, Nobles having rights to rape women engaged to wed to an other men and trying to keep the Irish illiterate? If not, should she stay our Chief of State?

Yes. Keep her!
She's a true treasure.
Without her we would have had no one to look up to.
Whats done is done.
The Bible says we've got to forgive for past wrongs or God doesnt forgive us.
Would you have the same respect for a Bob Hawke, or a Paul Keating or even a John Howard as head of state?
I wouldnt have.
Theres something gloriously wonderful about a Royal Household, especially when you realise God has Given it to us to love and cherish as something of special value.
Long live the Queen.

Dear Oliver,

Seeing as Australia is to become a Republic, it's only a question of when?

Your question is really irrelevant to this country.

All,

It is meant be an open question. We have apologized retrospectively for our wrongs, as have other countries over the poor treatment of indigenous people. Should Britain, Spain and Portugal do the same for its worse treatment of peoples in the name of mercantilism? QEII simply represents as Kevin Rudd the Office of PM.

Among the Articles of the Church of England remains a belief in the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. Herein, it was held by Church and State that Black people are black in punishment for their ancestors sins. QEII is defender of that faith, even, if "not" this interpretation is not realised today.

Did you that Downing Street in London is named after the Anglican Revered George Downing, a slave trader. He is noted to have said:

"I believe that they have bought this year no less than a thousand negroes and, the buy they buy, the better able are they to buy for, in a year and a half,they will earn with God's blessing as much as they cost." Christian Downing's perspective

Defender of the Faith William IV, as Duke of Clence opposed the abolition of slavery in the House of Lords.

In good conscience can QEII maintain the title of DoF.

I agree that Australia will becomea republic, not in the nexy five uears, but perhaps by 2025. Hope I see it.

QEII has been a good queen and served her people well. That is not the point.

Now that's being ridiculous.

Dear Oliver,

Tony Blair, it must be remembered, had found it politically correct to
say "sorry" to the Irish people for Great Britain's inefficient handling of the potato famine 150+ years ago.

It is unlikely though that Queen Elizabeth II will apologise for anything.

An apology that comes from the heart carries with it a sense of sincerity. But an apology that is sought for and offered reluctantly is an insult to the memory of those to whom the perpetrators of the crime are supposedly saying "sorry" without, of course, meaning to say it. And here again, the point needs to be made that crimes committed in continuity cannot be atoned for by simply saying a very
reluctant "sorry."

Can you really imagine Queen Elizabeth II, on behalf of the entire British Nation saying "sorry?" And if she does it should be for all crimes that were perpetrated in the name of holding aloft the Union Jack.

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed just how silly some of these General discussions have become of late?

Dear CJ,

I couldn't agree with you more...

Do you think some of the topics being put up for discussion - are done simply - to get a predictable reaction - to stir the pot?

Foxy & CJ,

So, by extrapolation, you feel it is silly discuss an apology to indigenous peoples by the PM. I didn't gain that impression, especially of Foxy. The slave trade mades Australia's invasion look like a scene from Mary Poppins. Neither Elizabeth or Kevin were personally involved, but their Offices were involved. I both or neither should apologise. You can't have it both ways or can you?

Well, Foxy I accept that you don't hold the Crown accountable, and, now can't hold the Commonwealth accountable for past atrocities to indigenous peoples.

CJ, you should read "The Slave Trade" by Hugh Thomas and you will see slavery fueled by Mercantilism and Racism is tragic not silly.

If you have seen it, the movie account of the hard hitting drama of the Amistad is sanitized.

Should the British Monarch hold the title, "Defender of the Faith". By what authority, after Henry VIII?

Using your logic Oliver, surely it should have been the Queen who apologized to the aborigines, not Kevin Rudd?

Alternatively, if we agree that Kevin is the right person to perform the apology, then it should be the UK's PM who does so on behalf of his country.

Mind you, I think the whole idea of "a nation apologizing" is pure politics.

People apologize. Nations cannot credibly do so.

Dear Oliver,

I'm not going to enter into a debate with you - because it would be a waste of your and my time. I don't mean to offend you however - you already know full well where I stand on the Indigenous issue.

As for the Queen's apology, I've already explained what an apology should mean, and I also tried to tell you - it's not something that's going to happen. What you, or I, or anyone else thinks - won't make the slightest difference.

By the way, Tony Blair said he was "sorry" for his country's role in the slave trade. Blair has previously expressed his "deep sorrow" for slavery, abolished within the British Empire 201 years ago. Britain abolished the trade in 1807 - it was the first major slave trafficking nation to do so.

Anyway, I wish you success with this thread - may you get the answers that you're obviously looking for, however I won't be contributing to it any further.

Cheers.

Cheers.

Oliver had you been sitting at a lunch table with the old girl she would have put her purse on the floor and lackey would have moved you to another seat.
Had Gibo been beside her she may have ran out of the room.
The old Sheila has not got to say sorry just go, much sooner than 2025 you will see it.

FOXY.. speaking of Tony Blair.... in the context of "Will Gordon Brown be remembered in the Wax Museum"

the newsreader this morning on SkyNews, observed that Tony Blair had been placed in Madaam Tousseuds wax museum... in a NATIVITY SCENE...
and the poor newsreader cracked up and almost brought the whole team down with a fit of the giggles.

"Did they make him one of the wise men"? and so the one liners unfolded.
(along with the giggles)

TOPIC. The topic clearly shows the problems associated with such apologies for historic wrongs. 'Where do you stop'?

Hear hear, Perciles.

I would also add that while we may now find some past actions distasteful we are only applying our current thinking and values to those scenerios. Values change over time, so to hold someone responsbile for actions of an ancestor, perhaps, hundreds of years ago is ludicrous.

Perhaps one of your ancestors was a murderer; should you be held responible for their actions, track down the murdered's family and apologise? Unlikely....

Unless the person who performed the crime changes his / her attitude to remorse for the action the whole criminal act remains unresolved. Apologising for ncestors wrongs only resolves the current persons attitudes if they hold the same criminal attitudes as their ancestors.

Much of the depression / guilt industry operates on someone else's unresolved crimes. Let us live life by our own conscience and be free of the guilt of others. Stop grovelling to others agends to make us bear guilt that is not our doing. We are answerable for our own lives not others. That means we do not commit the sins of our ancestors.

A-Hahahahaha Nice one.

Do we as decendants of the persecuted of the Bristish empire require that to help move on from from the injustices we feel as the 'peasants' of their rule?.

My ancestry is Scottish with a dash of pom. Going by the lack of influence the royal family have on my existence I feel is a telling sign of the future for 'the family'. I hold no animosity towards the empire due to the fact that that was just how it worked then. Do we all wanna sit and plead victim, or do we just wanna get on with it?.

So all of you agree that the Office of Prime Minister of Australia should NOT have apologised for what earler generations did to indigenous peoples. What you have said to me about the Queen is exactly what John Howard [and I didn't vote for him, he lives in 1950s] said about aplogising to the aborigines. My point is that we hold double standards. Japan will not apologise for War Crimes but feels China should apologize for its arocities in China which go to 1930s. China is against burying war criminals in war necropolises.

Beings against the "Sins of the Fathers" is also oppoesed to the docrines of the Cathloc Church and the Anglican Church on original sin. The Queen as Defender of the Faith upholds the doctrine of "original sin". I suspect the Hecrews would have held that "original sinal" as a doctrine and term did not stop with the alleged adam and Eve.

Perhaps Elizabeth should Not apologise {i really don't care]; but maybe should dispense with some of her titles.

My true purpose with the post was expose hypocracy and attact the the notion of Defender of the Faith.

It seems to me, Oliver, that what you're writing about has more to do with religion? Howabout the Archbishop of Canterbury apologise and/or the Pope for the Crusades?!

Wake up....

C J Morgan,

'Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed just how silly some of these General discussions have become of late?'

I think it's totally irrelevant what the topic is. Well it is to some who are only interested in talking about religion. Or feminism. Or those like yourself who think they are a cut above everybody.

I've had enough of it really. Blogging is a mind-numbingly useless past-time. It exists only as an outlet for egocentric people who think anyone really cares what they think. Nobody here is going to solve any of the worlds problems that's for sure.

I think the best topics of this whole site were 'A Journey' by BOAZY, and 'My years as a young cop' by Gibo. Well that's the direction that Graham is taking the site. It's all about traffic, and we are all so happy to line Graham's pockets with advertising revenue by bothering to post on such things.

LOL This isn't blogging 'Usual Suspect'. This is a forum. A fairly dry forum...relatively speaking. Anyway, off topic. I made a concise, intelligent, relevant and pertenant comment regarding the intended direction of this topic. Bow at my awesomeness.

Now, let's see how dry this joint is.

Oliver,
England's Royalty Failed to apply their own law in Tasmania and the Mainland.

This led to the genocide of many Aboriginal nations .For this the Queen could well apologise .

In the famous South Australian Feb 1836 "Letters Patent " -the Royal and Parliamentary Instructions to the white Colonisers of SA by King William the Fourth are instructions to the invading Colonists NOT to "affect the Rights of any Aboriginal Natives["or their Descendants"] of the said Province".

In all over Australia then, and in the Northern Territory now, their Rights and instructions of the Letters Patent have been conveniently ignored .

I would like to see a formal apology by the Farmers of Australia in the Parliament [probably via that bastion of the landed gentry the National Farmers Federation and it's State Affiliates] as they were, in many cases, the instrument of Government that did the "dirty work" of the Government of the day as they expanded and did their first clearing job.

That was getting rid of the Aboriginals that were in the way as the occupiers and illiterate owners of the land that both the settlers and the Crown wanted .

And while some will say that it was yesterday's "work" the truth is the Aboriginal people of Australia will continue to fight for Justice while ever there is no formal Treaty and they continue to be treated in a racist way .

The Wound still festers .

Usual Suspect,

You show me any post of yours' that is well researched at the following to Sells. It will show who is thinking or who is the three sentice wonder.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7323&page=3

Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 7:42:23 PM &ted by Oliver, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 10:21:18 PM

The tiitle is not as it seems. The superficiality of your comprehension probably justifies you not joining the debate.

I will reveal more later.

Pericles, Pericles;

I agree with you! It is a ruse.

Even as a Rublican, I admire the Queen, and, have donw since a child in the 50s, when I so her in a mechanics uniform repairing a car for the WWII effort.

Some posters here are criticing me for expressin the same view -they thenselves- expressed regarding Stephan Hagan's articles, where incidelntly I mentioned that nineteen century atrtocities were the crimes of the Crown and Squatters.

The response of contributors and my ctitics show that they hold different views on the same behaviour depending on whether the target the post is a Person or Office or The Victim.

The church stuff is secondary but important. The Queen believing in the Thirty Nine Articles maintains tether to original sin and the "Sins of the Father" Moreover, it reinforces the absence of Church & State in England. O do believe the Queen should drop the Defender of the Faith title towhich is not entitled [Tutor Henry] and VIII] and contrary to her lack of contritions.

Others,

If the rest of you think the above is trivial blogging, remember half the world is worried about the State and Church issue, with regards Iran. But you probably think that trivial too.

If the rest of you th

Oliver,

You should apologise for insulting everyones' intelligence.

Steel,

Please develop your argument with apt citations.

Hello Foxy,

"Britain abolished the trade in 1807 - it was the first major slave trafficking nation to do so."

No really. The British slave traders simily changed flags on their chips and traded using subsidiaries between non-British ports and the Crown didn't intervene for the same reason Hilter didn't invade Switzerland; it would have ruined world trade.

Some the post-1807 ships were:

- Catalina
- Eagle
- Rosa
- Thistle

The companies still trading ppost 1807 include:

- McDowal, Whitehead & Hibbert [Liverpool]
- M.R. Dawson and Holland and CO. [Liverpool]
- Clark & Co, [London]

post-1807

"British sailors helped teach the Cuban-based Spanards the tricks of the trade]. Many English firms still supplies the 'trade good' [slaves] for slave voyages of Portugeuse and Spanish ships".

One trick of the trade was to take a slave tie him face upwards naked on the deck. Whip him to death. Dismember him and hang the torso on the mask: Many blacks believed that the spirit of a dismembered body could not return to their homeland. For the Christian English and Spanish, it a brutual warning not to revolt.

I guess CJ Morgan feels all these matters are "silly" and beyond OLO Discussion. I have great faith than he in the intelligence of the OLO readership.
CJm go to the video store and borrow Armstadt. For most a serious drama. You perhaps a silly flick. By the way, it does come out in the movie; the real reason live slaves were thrown overboard was that if they died at see they could collect from their insurance company, if they landed dead from stavation the could not. Silly, is it not?

All,

The "original sin" and "Defender of the Faith" is a real contemporary issue and could be said to relate to the sins of the fathers

Oliver
Part of Tony Blair's statement on the slave trade.
The transatlantic slave trade stands as one of the most inhuman enterprises in history. At a time when the capitals of Europe and America championed the Enlightenment of man, their merchants were enslaving a continent. Racism, not the rights of man, drove the horrors of the triangular trade. Some 12 million were transported. Some three million died.
Slavery's impact upon Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas and Europe was profound. Thankfully, Britain was the first country to abolish the trade. As we approach the commemoration for the 200th anniversary of that abolition, it is only right we also recognise the active role Britain played until then in the slave trade. British industry and ports were intimately intertwined in it. Britain's rise to global pre-eminence was partially dependent on a system of colonial slave labour and, as we recall its abolition, we should also recall our place in its practice.
It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time. Personally I believe the bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was - how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Talking about the trade in human slaves I read somwhere recently it is more prevalent today than when England was involved in it trade. The Australia sex industry has asian wemon held here as slaves. In this industry there is no sense of guilt over the use of wemon held against their will as sex slaves.

Philo, I agree in part with your comment "Much of the depression / guilt industry operates on someone else's unresolved crimes. Let us live life by our own conscience and be free of the guilt of others. Stop grovelling to others agends to make us bear guilt that is not our doing. We are answerable for our own lives not others. That means we do not commit the sins of our ancestors."

The point where it becomes more complex is where the current generation benefits from the wrongdoing of a past generation.

If wealth was aquired by an earlier generation by doing harm to others is it then OK for the current generation to live off the benefits of that earlier wrongdoing or is there a responsibility to try and put right what you can?

In this case is a part of the British crowns wealth derived from the harm done to australian aboriginals? If so should that be put right?

I'm not aware of the financial implications of what was done here, maybe Elizabeth's wealth is entirely unrelated to what was done in Australia or maybe not.

R0bert

Oliver: << I guess CJ Morgan feels all these matters are "silly" and beyond OLO Discussion. I have great faith than he in the intelligence of the OLO readership. >>

Of course "all these matters" aren't silly.

However, that's not how you began the discussion. Instead, your initial post was poorly written, tendentious and silly - and my comment was directed at those aspects of it. If you want to discuss something sensible, why not just come out and say it?

These 'bait & switch' exercises seem to be increasingly common in this forum, and I for one find them irritating rather than conducive to actual discussion.

Robert,

"The point where it becomes more complex is where the current generation benefits from the wrongdoing of a past generation."

That is certainly true of the Crown monopolies [East India Company] from 1601 [in memory serves], of the slave trade and the opium trade [against the Chinese]." We will go to war with the Middle East at a drop of a hat but not napalm the Goldren Triange and the Columbian jungle.

Yes, in many ways the Royal families are like the MAFIA, crooks, whom ultimately ligitimise themselves; as was alleged of JFK's family too.

CJM,

Had I let be known that I was trying to catch out double standards between apologies made by the PM seeming okay but by the Queen not; the exercise would have been lost.

Blinds are commonly used in experimentation, wherein a subject thinks they are doing one thing, while the experiment is testing something else. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Some posters supported Stephen Hagan's push for a treaty/apology but opposed the Queen taking the same action as did Rudd. Curious?

That said, it is hard for the British Monarch to be "Defender of the Faith" and maintain the 39 articles [originally 42] of the Anglican Church, which do include the doctrine of orginal sin; if s/he feels no fault. She should apologise or drop the religious title. Not to; creates an obvious contradiction. Does it not?

I would prefer she drop the title and England have separation of State and Church. She can forget about the apology, if the majority of the English people don't care. But to iterate, two positions do not logically stand side-by-side. Think about it.

Sorry if what you see "bate & switch" irrating but trust the topics now under review are neither trivial nor Silly.

In advertising, there is what is called the ADIA model; Attention, Desire, Interest and Action. I was trying the AIA bit.

Foxy,

In the name of Commerce [palm-oil trade] Victoria traded with "slave trading" Kings well into the nineteenth century [c.1850]. The drugging the Chinese took over

Foxy,

Please note, that the Trading Kings I refer anre not British, rather Black African Tribal Kings whom used slave labour. England did not embargo trade was the point.

Black Africans exported something like 11 million of their own ethnic kind over five hundred You wont here that from any US preacher or Opra. In theb fifteen century there white slaves [Moors} too.

Incidently, must of the slave trade between the fifteen and nineteenth century was between Africa and Brazil & Cuba. At least ten times that with the US, despite the impression from TV. Suguar not cotton was the main commodity.

In 1845 as follow up to 1807 leglislation was passed in 1845 saying that any Briton could involved in the slave trade would be executed [without right to seeing a clergiman]. No-one was every prosecuted when discovered that the nobility were ring leaders. A bit like waiting a day before a NSW socialite a DUI test?

Foxy “Seeing as Australia is to become a Republic, it's only a question of when?

Your question is really irrelevant to this country.”

But it is not yet a republic.

So, your presumptions to the future status of the present head of state are what is irrelevant.

On the matter of monarch or republic, I am not a monarchist nor am I a republican.

If we were to parallel the monarchy/ republic debate and describe it in terms of religious (monarchy) and Atheist (republican), I consider myself an agnostic.

I find the whole matter something of a total irrelevance to me, my family, my happiness or my well being.

If and when a change does take place I ask “Will it actually effect me?”

Will I be relieved of any social expectation or will more be thrust upon me?

The answer – it don’t make a rats of a difference.

So why bother, who cares?

I can understand the monarchists, possibly clinging to the last vestiges of fealty but the republicans I just do not get.

Why replace a position which functions cheaply and is resourced by an hereditary nominee, albeit distantly, with a local alternative who is selected by what?

A bunch of pollies having another opportunity to sell a vote or a wider electorate which will incur greater cost funded by greater demands against scarce tax resources?

The role of head of state is not a problem or in need of repair, so if it ain’t broken don’t bother to fix it.

As for apology, the first apology was an exercise in political cynicism, hence John Howard did not do it and Krudd did.

Thus I see no reason for QEII needing to have a say about it either.

Dear Oliver (Olly),

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion any further - but here I am again, being roped in.

My reference re-the slave trade was as a result of a recent DVD that my husband brought home for me called, "Amazing Grace."

It's an interesting film based on the life of William Wilberforce, a leader in the fight to abolish the slave trade and slavery in the British Empire. In 1780, he entered the British Parliament and became a leading Tory, noted for his eloquence. In 1789, Wilberforce led a campaign against the British slave trade. A bill to end this trade passed in the House of Commons in 1792 but failed in the House of Lords. When such a bill finally became law in 1807, Wilberforce turned against the foreign slave trade. He retired from Parliament in 1825 but continued to support the campaign against the foreign slave trade. After 1823, Wilberforce supported the emancipation of the slaves in Britain's colonies.

If you have the time (and the inclination) you may find the DVD interesting.

Dear Col Rouge,

You may be interested to know that Queen Elizabeth II did apologise
to a six-year old little girl from Cornwall who was bitten by one of the "Royal Swans." So, under the right circumstances it appears that apologies are forthcoming from the Royals. (Just teasing you Sir...)

Oliver,
As you seem to be perpetually confused as to the use of who and whom (I notice you asked for help on another thread after trying to correct Dickens’ superlative English) here are a couple of web-sites that might sort it out.
www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html -
www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp -
homeworktips.about.com/od/homeworkhelp/a/whom.htm

Romany
Thank you very much for the websites with English grammar! I must learn the very basics of English language!
thank you!
www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html -
www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp -
homeworktips.about.com/od/homeworkhelp/a/whom.htm
regards

Romany,

Thanks for those valuable sources, I will certainly check each out. I usually use Fowler & Partridge and the OED.

"Who" is subjective and "whom" objective: I would have thought the child; the object of Carton's sentence?

"... a general writer may have a general impresssion that, with who and whom, to choose between, it is easier safer to play whom, except where an IMMEDIATELY following verb decides AT ONCE, who". [emphasis added] "lay upon her bosom" - Fowler

Lay is followed by a preposition not "who"; "upon" her would suggest, whom, if taken as the object of the sentence.

Moreover, Dickens does an unusual thing by using a single verb [lay], between the who and the preposition "upon"?

"She lay", not, she lays, in the present tense. Strange? Recall all of Carton's unspoken soliliquy is first person, first tense thoughts before dies. Lay is past tense, albeit laid is making its way into speech. - Fowler

Fowler adds that lay [and lie] strictly refers to the configation to the ground - not bossoms.

Thanks again I will try to address my confusion.

Cheers and good wishes,

O.

Oliver

I would prefer not to sit around thinking about how much of a victim we all are. We already have numerous people in that category. Would it not be novel to find a few people we can thank for this prosperous land instead of looking for more sorries. If we all counted our blessings we might drop the depression rate in this country.

Somehow I think the above arguments might just go unnoticed in central Oz; where the rights of security, and to youthful imagination and,dare I say it' childhood Dreaming will be impinged upon by adult concerns tonight.

Whether or not Her Maj. apologizes will not make an ounce of difference on the ground.

What will count is education of the children, AND their parents generation.

R0bert
You put a good question.
"If wealth was aquired by an earlier generation by doing harm to others is it then OK for the current generation to live off the benefits of that earlier wrongdoing or is there a responsibility to try and put right what you can?"
Is it enough to put questions? Do not you know what happened? Do not you know the answer from your question?
WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ACTS OF OUR ANCESTORS WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE VICTIMS FROM OUR ANCESTORS BECAUSE WE BENEFIT FROM THEIR VICTIMIZATION.
WHILE THE ACTS FROM OUR ANCESTORS STOPPED, THE RESULTS FROM THEIR ACTS TO US AND ABORIGINES CONTINUE TO EXIST, ALIKE CONTINUE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO ABORIGINES UNTIL TO FIND A MUTUALLY ACCEPTED SOLUTION.
Regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy and Runner,

I lost a longer reply and now becoming tired. So, please the brevity:

Aplogising for the [orginal] sins of her ancestors fits in with the Queens Coronation oath to uphold the Thiry-Nine [oginally 42] articles of the Church of England, including orginal sin for which she should demonstrate contrition for the "sins of her fathers". She shpu;d show contrition to be constant with her beliefs [nor necessarily ours]. Even way before the split the Western Church, William the Conqueror when into seclusion for a year as pentance.

Actually, I feel Queen should not apologise just drop the title Defender of the Faith, having separation between Church, State and Monarchy.

Foxy, I admire Willian Wilberforce too.

Runner, my little post-research project has demonstated that posters identify with victims [aborigines] not personalities. Yes, we should he aware of the wealth and power of the West, but, as Toynbee notes 23 civilizations have come and gone;

Ozymandias:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

(Shelley, 1818)

What we hold dear is tenuous.

[Ozymandias was Rameses II]

"If wealth was aquired by an earlier generation by doing harm to others is it then OK for the current generation to live off the benefits of that earlier wrongdoing or is there a responsibility to try and put right what you can?"

If I steal your car and give it a relative, who gives it his daughter? Who owns the Car?

How did the Kennedy's make their Money?

What if the tobacco industry diversifies into ethical drugs? Are they still murders?

Dear Oliver,

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying ... you're raising so many questions that it's hard to keep up. (Where do we start with the answers?). The bottom line is - its a moral choice isn't it?
Countries and their leaders have to decide for themselves where they stand. Of course pressure can be applied through 'collective action' as I've argued on another post. And it all depends on how people feel about matters. My personal feelings concerning the British Establishment, and especially the Monarch, is that it's not going to happen. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, I'm just stating the facts as I see them.

Take care.

Hello Foxy,

My Headliner was meant to bring out issues and not at first state my point-of-view at first. It containes Ingenious vs. Crown apologies.Also, the status of Defender of the State.

I think the Queen did the right thing apologizing to the little girl, some both will surely remember. Had she not the press might have erupted like Quackatoa.

Seriously, the Queen is a wonderful person but her relavance to us is vague for me. I would vote for a Rebuplic but like the Union Jack on the flag issue can wait for the older generation to die out before change. Were I to meet Her Majesty I would extent every courtesy, as she does towards her subjects.

The UK dropped us in WWII, left us for the Common Market in 1957, and, now is making visas harder for Australians. Most worl PMs visit Australia but when did an English PM lasr give his respects in Canberra. Yet, they wanted us to ptotect them in WWI & WWII and help build the atomc bomb when the US would not [they were out favour because of the Suez crisis].

WE want Britian. So, why have its monarch, unless she moves here. English military failures cost millions of lives and it is a poor creditors, borrowing billions from the US and vnver paying its bills [e.g., war debt].

When Britian entered WWII it was because Gremany invaded Poland. WE are saving the Poles. What happened immediately after WWII, Russia quarantined Poland, millions dies. Britain sat on its a*! Why not attack Stalin?

You can't apologise for everything. Firstly, it's ridiculous in scope. And secondly it's not going to happen, because other countries vehemently disagree with you.

Dear Steel,

Thank you for your reply but your two liners are hard to address.

If you read back over my posts, I am not asking for an apology, I was pointing out that posters will hold one position to apologise to aborigines but feel it irrelevant Britain apologise its atrocities: e.g., the Potestant [parallel] inqusitions, Ireland [did apologise], the slave trade and the opium trade [to balance her trade deficit with China]. Britain has a terrible history. Read the fate of the child Lady Jane Grey.

What the OLO replies show is people will identify with victims, when facts are know, and there is plenty of press: But, when the person to make the apology is esteemed [i too respect the Queen] a double stand applies. She would be apologising for Office as did Rudd.

Either both parties apologise or neither apologise. Else, we learn towards hypocracy.

The British Crown, especially is 1601 [ Elizabeth I granting monopolies to companies with military backing] to colonise other coubtries did much worse things than Rudd or Australia.

British has improved morally since George VI, much to its credit snd respect. It took five hundred years but a true constitutional monarchy now works for Britain.

I happy with the Monarchy until the "cprrect" republican model is in place and prepared to wait five or ten years. But the fact is we have outgrown the Old World. As Ronald Reagan said Australia is the US of the twenty-first century.

The other point was according to her copnstitution oath as Defender of the Faith, a believer must recognise original sin, even beyond Adam and Eve [OT].

SUMMARY

In sum,

I think we saw some double-standards visa~a~vis publised victims [indigenous peoples] and respected personalities [Hew Majesty].

Everyone loves the Queen [the person], the Queen would never apologise despite this conflicts with Coronation oath at Defender of the faith and upholder of the 39 Articles [42 before QEI], most perhaps not all would like to see a republic.

Should Queen apologise? Our I suggest is, it is irrelevant to Australia and we haven't thought much about the religious implications, (a) for oath and {b) separation of church and state.

Apppreciate youR participation in the debate. Thank you.

O.