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 > General Discussion > Should Queen Elizabeth II Apologise?

Should Queen Elizabeth II Apologise?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All
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.
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 11 May 2008 1:11:41 AM
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
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].
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 11 May 2008 2:49:26 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
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.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 11:58:36 AM
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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All

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