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.