Our media is full of storys saying Williams visit may be the end a thoughts about an Australian republic.
What do others think will Wombat, be king?
No disrespect he has been called that, nice young bloke seems just like his mum warm and caring.
But do we want another king?, maybe two more kings his dad then him.
I am sure in time we will not look for a king, if politicians from both sides had not have insisted they got their way we may well not have one now.
Republicans[including myself] come from all sides of politics, we do not seek to forget our heritage, our ties to England, but understand we have ties to many nations.
We need not leave the common wealth but I Do not share the idea being Queen allows ours to put her purse on the floor so her companion can be wished away for not pleasing her.
Or that this nice baby faced young bloke one day may have to be bowed to, never by me death before that crawling act.

The fawning bootlicking going on in the media at the moment is nothing short of sickening. The ridiculous idea that only a descendant of the current queen can be our head of state is to me offensive and goes against everything democracy stands for. The born to rule, elitist parasites of a royal family have absolutely no relevance to modern Australia and is actually an insult to our supposedly democratic and egalitarian society. They belong in history books not on our tv screens as they are pampered and spoiled at our expense! Let them go out and get real jobs and prove themselves by their actions not who they are. Like the rest of us.

I tend to agree with mikk.They still think that they are born to rule even with their genetic inbreeding.Dianna Spencer was just too good for this bunch of arrogrant parasites.

People only bow to this aristocracy in the hope of some fame or feel ordained in some way by their recognition.Nothing can be further from the truth.They will use anyone who bows to their power.Nothing has changed.

Belly wrote:
"Or that this nice baby faced young bloke one day may have to be bowed to, never by me death before that crawling act."

See we do agree on some things :)

Though I really don't see how a The Peoples Republic of Oz would make an iota of difference to our way of life?

@ mikk
You put it so eloquently mate, good show old chap :)

I agree with every post so far, but raw mustard I Do think you underlined an important fact.
Remember I come from the older generation, just refuse to think like them.
And they waffle on about the changes a republic would bring, almost inviting the devil into the kitchen stuff.
In reality it did America no harm, and it would do us none.
My childhood in part was spent in the southern highlands, as was my fathers and his fathers.
Bowral then was no place for a proud Aussie.
Home was England and you nearly had to hold your hat over your heart to talk to some.
Why? good lord why bow to an old lady who while smiling often has far too much money tax payers provide, get of your knees Australia.
This family had to be told to get out and honor Diana, the most human face of this family.
Let the next governor general be Noel Pierson, and the Head of state picked by the people.

Dear Belly,

I think that it's not a question of whether
Prince William will be Australia's Head of State.
And it's not even a question of whether
Australia will ever be a Republic. It's
only a question of WHEN will Australia become
a Republic?

Prince William is a charming young man - but
he's an English prince and heir to the British
throne. Australia needs her own identity - and
in the 21st Century - should realize that she
can stand on her own two feet - and no longer
feel the compulsion to be a British colony.
We have our own National Anthem - we should also
have our own Head of State - and not one who lives
in Britain - with British interests at heart.

Eighty per cent of Australia's population - based
on a recent survey - want an Australian Head of
State - and a Republic. It's obvious that
according to the line of succession - Prince William
will be King one day - and we hope that before that
happens - Australia will become a Republic.

There is a need to separate the man from the spin of the aristocratic Norman-French family that is trying to hold on to its status and privilege.

Without thought, this fellow abused his position to fly a large Chinook helicopter to a stag party. As a military officer he should have been charged and court-martialed. It was a bit of a fluke and a sign of the diminished influence of the royals that the story got to air at all. On the other hand, had it been the PM, he would have been tendering his resignation.

There is a real ugliness behind the power and patronage of the Windsors, as can be seen by the treatment given by the Queen and her family to the unfortunate people who have married in. If that doesn't demonstrate the gulf between the spin and reality, what might? The British PM looks absolutely foolish when he says that the Queen is a unifying influence. I guess he was talking about the position not the person, but even of so an elected, accountable president would be much more likely to be seen as a unifying figure.

I have no interest in making a personal attack on any of the royal family, just trying to lift HRH's hem ever so slightly to show the very fallible and sometimes wilful and unaccountable human beneath.

The republican demand is for own head of state with a proper mandate from the people. However at the same time it is appropriate to seek some accountability from the foreign queen who has a vested interest in putting the Windsor aristocrats first, then England and beggar the colony that has propped up England with tonnes of gold and troops to fight their wars.

Go along with the purple spin for Willie, never!

I agree with all the posts so far.
While I think all countries should show respect to Government officials and Royalty from other nations who are visiting their country, we should be appointing Australian born permanent resident officials for all those Government jobs that involve our country.

Prince William does seem a nice bloke and he certainly keeps many media personnel in jobs, but he should not be given a job just because he is a Windsor.
Australia is long overdue to become a republic.

No problem with the helicopter, an ex RAAF bloke had his mates make an illegal landing to say Gday near me, it happens.
Yes a republic and soon no war with England just pride in Australia.

Our political system is really bad isn't it. Regular contributors to the Forum or OLO live in fear of a knock on the door at 3 am and a short terminal trip with the secret police.
The head of our system can be held in the same fear as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and the list goes on.
What is wrong if some idiot is prepared to be sat at the top of the political pyramid, keeping such dictators out.
If Howard and his gang can take us off to war with Iraq without any evidence of wrong doing that would hurt us, if Rudd can sign away our sovereignty to a bunch of European con artists in Brussels and still our lives go on, I don't see much point in changing our system.
Sorry, the Japanese are a major trading partner and they don't like our monarchy? You will just have to tell them to get rid of their Emperor then.
Us country yokels are not so sophisticated as you city slickers. We say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

phoenix94

Political system stays the same. We have our own elected head of state in the place of both the GG (a cardboard cut-out that costs $$) and England's queen (who doesn't support our cricketers).

Dear phoenix94,

"If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

That's just an excuse for laziness and
inaction!

I personally think that once the queen either passes, or become unfit to rule, then the wheels may well fall off this age old custom big time.

phoenix94 you are pulling our leg right.
Comparing our system to Hitler or those others.
Do not give us bushys a bad name Friend.
That quaint ain't broke stuff is not working.
If I look for basic reality here in your comment the best bet is you are fishing.
No way even the village idiot could think a knock may come at 3am to cart us away.
rather Nice young bloke, rich, hansom, educated has left our country.
If he comes back as king[he will not] you could have to bow to him.
Again, it is boring unfocused and untrue, those unhappy with Rudd [probably very happy with Howard, claim our politicians are no good.
Truly no way you can claim any understanding of the subject with views like that IF you hold them.

All we need to do is elect the GG and remove all reference to 'The Crown' and repeal the right of the High Court to pass a case to the British Privy Council.
In electing the GG on present no immediate past poly' could be nominated for the post.
A small change and we carry on.
No change in 'names' Governor General as Head of State and not President.
Commonwealth of Australia and not The Republic of Australia

Peter the believer are you around?
I am pretty sure we can no longer refer to the privy council, in fact that went a long time ago.
Not anything but a cop out, your plan to half change.
Fact is the GG has stopped being a Brit and became our governments appointment a long time ago.
Rudd put this nice old thing in, lets get an Aboriginal next.
then the referendum in Rudd's third term, his last.

Belly old mate, check S74 of our constitution.

I have no idea where you are comming from

Think man, Think

Belly,

The GG, Ms Quentin Bryce AC is the Queen's representative in Australia.

Australia is a fully independent parliamentary democracy, however Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also formally the Queen of Australia.

It is because the major political parties wanted to make any new head of Australia a political appointment that some people have shied away from the idea, preferring QE II to a Politically Correct appointee or yet another military blimp.

Cornflower with respect, do you truly think?
Truly?
That I do not understand and agree with every word you say.
JMMC sorry if that is not your right name.
Let us talk, in debate, you I the bloke down the road, we should give value to others views.
If we expect to be heard/seen/read/considered true debate values all views.
We, you I every one, it is a human fault, tend to give much more value to our own ideas and thoughts.
We, gee me often chuckle and put down others views.
I understand your concept, it is not new, it is not just your invention, I disagree with it, totally.
With great confidence I say most Australians do too, that one day we, all of us from country's all over the world, will both be a Republic and still tied by history to England.
Tell me Friend when did this country, any person in this country, last refer to England's privy council?
Do you know I get it wrong, have said things I no longer agree with?
And things on reflection I did not think then.
But I learn something new every day,
I value all input, until I see the poster gives value only to his/her own words.
And so very often that closed mind is also very wrong.
PTB all is forgiven one of us is wrong about privy council tell us who please.

I waited. I love Belly because he is a man of principle. Rough, perhaps uneducated, sometimes illogical but nonetheless a man of principle. However when the basic understanding of what Royal means is displayed by so many so often, and is wrong, I almost cry.

Royal means of Almighty God. Almighty God should be the guiding light of every country on earth, and when Royals forgot Almighty God they perished. Only a few Royals remain, there is one in Denmark with an Australian Queen, and an English Royal Family, subject at all times to Almighty God. The Australian Constitution incorporates Christianity into the Law of Australia. It does so with Royal Assent and registration by the Master of the Rolls in the Law Register of England.

Only a regular Church attendee can read the Holy Bible and react with fellow Christians in concert. Belly probably never goes to church anymore. Most of the few who post here probably do not either. I have been to Hillsong Conference, where 20,000 Christians gather every year to hear the Word of God. It is awe inspiring as is their Men’s Conference, where 5000 plus men gather in a men only conference. The women’s conference attracts many more than that.

The thing is that even Hillsong does not realize how important it is to educate people on what the Australian Constitution really does. It was a pact or Deed of Agreement by all Christians to create a Commonwealth. In Quick and Garran, the definitive Book on the Constitution, it is stated that the word Commonwealth comes out of Ephesians 2 Verse 12. Jesus Christ invented democracy. Democracy is not Courts and Judges, it is courts and judges, and S 2 Judiciary Act 1903 reflects this fact.

The Australian Government is not the same as the Commonwealth Government. The Australian Government Solicitor is not a Commonwealth Solicitor, but a private firm owned by the Australian Government. If you want an education get your butt into a church, and read the Bible under the guidance of an honest Pastor. Most churches have good ones, some don’t

Thank you Belly. You said: PTB all is forgiven one of us is wrong about privy council tell us who please.

The Queens Privy Council in Australia is the Parliament of the Commonwealth. A privy was once a small shed down in the back yard, but words and their meaning matter. Privy also means from Noah Websters Dictionary, Private; as belonging to or pertaining to some particular person, esp with reference to a sovereign. It expands it further; law; one who has a legally recognized interest or responsibility in an estate or transaction. This of course is the same as in the Big 20 Volume Oxford.

Those Liberal Party mongrels you so regularly berate, changed the Constitution without a referendum in New South Wales by making lawyers the local parish priest, and a panel of nine lawyers the ultimate council of law in New South Wales. That is by S 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. It is not a Privy Council, but is full of the other meaning and what goes into a privy. The first Liberal Party change to the Australian Constitution was in South Australia in 1927, when the privies to Her Majesty, the judges referred to in S 79 Constitution were excluded from civil Courts. A Judge became God in South Australia.

You Mr Belly are a privy to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. When summonsed to serve on a jury you are supposed to make law, in a way that is absolute. Her Majesty’s privies were required to both set the sentence and decide guilt or innocence. On www.community-law.info you will find this law.

When you vote you vote for the Australian Privy Council in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. There can only be One Privy Council in Australia. All others are subservient to that, but your hero has been listening to the wrong people. He has not sacked the criminals who have robbed us of our Christian heritage, and he has 30 lawyers in his Privy Council in the House of Representatives. Even that privy council cannot overrule a juries verdict

Empty vessels make the most sound. I am moved to quote a proverb. 8:16 By me princes rule, and nobles even all the judges of the earth. That word judges is the same as that in S 79 Constitution.

In the book of Ruth, the first sentence reads, Now it came to pass in the days when judges ruled, that there was famine in the land. A Judge sitting alone rules Australia. He is either a Judge or Magistrate.

When the English chucked out the Roman Catholic Church in 1533, they redistributed all the land owned by that Church, roughly half of England to the people. It was not so he could remarry that Henry VIII threw out the Roman Catholic Church, it was so that he could redistribute the land they owned and worked with English slaves, to those working the land. The English loved their King for that reason. He still has a use in Australia. We are seeing theft by State Governments and even the Australian Government does it.

They can steal because we are no longer educated in Christian principles. Judges hear matters but do not listen. That is why the Holy Bible separated the power to judge from the power to administer the law, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23. Look it up for yourself.

Jesus Christ did not want to be a King in the conventional sense. He wanted to be above all Kings, and all Princes, but only the English adopted this as law. The Roman Catholic Church had an Emperor in Rome. For 800 years they have tried to undermine the English Monarchy. The English tried a Republic from 1649-1660, and the ravages of Cromwell were so bad in the country, that they restored the Monarchy, and in 1688, made all Kings subject to the Holy Bible by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp).

Every bit of freehold land is dependant on the Australian Sovereign. Abolish Her and lose your land.. Already they are stealing that land and KR wants to take your property in money with a new Tax too

Peter Vexatious,
Who are you?
You must be living in a vacuum, We in Oz live in a secular society,
church and government are not one, if this is the nonsense Hillsong are teaching - God help us

Dear Belly,
Section 74 of our Constitution reads:-

"74. No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the Question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure."

JMCC Peter is in fact a leaned legal practitioner.
Peter please, you need not have changed your name, it is clear you are in part right.
I am poorly educated, rough, proud of that last, honest truly hope so.
I too get it wrong, as you do, but will not hide behind another name.
I differ with you, often, never because you are a conservative, Liberal IN fact.
It is you stubborn refusal to see more humans, far more are not practicing Christians, than are.
Yet your God made us all/loves us all?
JMCC sorry I got you name wrong, I stand by my claim, great changes have been made from the days this quaint old lady had a privy council, in my adult lifetime.
Peter, you give the best reason for a republic I have ever seen, no way I will ever bend my legs to a royal.
Nore a God[again] that does not exist.
Born into a family from British stock, some convict, and into one loyal to Henrys invention the church of England, I claim solidarity with the rest of the world.
Those who do not want a life on their knees before a human like them or a dream that never was.
My country, lead by your mob or mine, is not threatened by change.

Belly and others,
Nothing has or will change Once Liz goes we'll get that very un-special wastes Charlie and Prunella outside divine providence that is.

To me a figurehead needs to be someone special, someone worthy, after Liz there's nothing that remotely looks special about that lot.
Special to me, is earned not just a lucky birth.

I propose King Belly? pity about his political affiliations though
he's certainly done more that Will the dill who still hasn't grown up.

I'm with you examinator. I would far rather see someone with principles like Belly in such a job, than a now not so young Prince William who would only get there by virtue of his birth.

Peter Vexatious are you for real or are you just yanking our chains?
Hillsong sounds like a real blast, but I think I will pass on that type of group anyway.

How do you feel about the current push to stop Parliamentarians from having to say the lord's prayer before the commencement of parliament each day?

I believe that a christian prayer like this has no place in a secular parliament like we have today.
This is no time to look back several thousand years for inspiration from how it was done back then.
It is time to move on and think for ourselves.

PV in my view is PTB and I have no doubt if he wished he could inform us about the privy council.
I contend the privy council we have now, and the laws of referral, are very much different than they had been early post ww2.
In fact up until 1972.
And more recently great changes have been made, some here can shed light if the want to.
Look I am in no way always happy with actions on both sides of the Aboriginal debate.
Both sides seem self interested , but in Pierson I see leadership and a GG well a president in fact.
Rudd in truth took the warm and comfy nice lady track, and she is a nice lady[ there Bill got over that rock ok?]
But Noel would make us so much better.
Hill song? 20.000 same day same country bet 200.000 went to our Beach's instead.

The Political Party that proposed the abolition of the Lord’s Prayer from Standing Orders, became history next election. Not a seat Zilch, none.

The Prayer Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, for 800 years was the basis of our legal system. The God we had was represented by a Justice we now call a Judge. These are mostly universally evil people, who inflict violence upon others, and in the words of Luke 11 Verse 46 lift not a finger of their own to help. This God had vested all judgment in the Son, John 5 Verses 22 and 23. Worth repeating. For the Father judgesth no man but has committed all judgment to the Son. That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

By sitting alone as a Judge, all Judges and Magistrates are defiling the memory of Jesus Christ and dishonouring the Father, Almighty God. It is no wonder they must receive $4000 a week up to $7000 a week, from a bribing government, to sell their souls to Satan for worldly wealth. Consequently unless we get a strong Christian Prime Minister, nine separate atheist churches will continue to worship themselves as sovereign, and insist that the Judges and Magistrates serve them and not Almighty God.

To be a Christian a Justice has to have a jury. Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of the Father, and as representing Jesus Christ, where two or more are gathered together in His name to be the judges of S 79 Constitution, we must have twelve people.

The only blasphemy Jesus Christ inflicts upon us is to deny the Holy Spirit. In Luke 12 Verse 10 Jesus said: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but unto him that blasphemest against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. So every time you see Judges and Magistrates have pity on them. They are the cursed of society

ROYAL PREROGATIVE
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Volume 8 Constitutional law

The Royal Prerogative

(5) THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE LAW

The Crown as the Source of all Jurisdiction

943 Sovereign as the source of all justice. By virtue of the prerogative the Sovereign is the source and fountain of justice and all jurisdiction derives from her. Hence in legal contemplation, the Sovereign’s Majesty is deemed always to be present in court, and by the terms of the coronation oath, and by the maxims of the common law as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments. This is however a purely impersonal conception, for the Sovereign cannot personally execute any office relating to the administration of justice nor effect an arrest and though all criminal suits must be brought in the Sovereigns name, she could not be non suited either in criminal or civil proceedings.

It is sad that all the Judges and Magistrates I have ever met are uneducated and will not receive instruction in their arrogance. This is not surprising because to be admitted as a lawyer, a person must graduate from the Houses of Evil staffed by atheists, they call Law Schools.

Even then they cannot get a licence to steal until they have spent a two year apprenticeship working for $20 an hour sixty hours a week, so a partner can charge their work to clients at $400 an hour. If they knew this and S 24 Australian Courts Act 1828 which provides that the Laws of England shall be applied to the administration of justice, we may be able to get some justice in Australia.

Blokes like Belly, honest hard working, with plenty of common sense, are the judges that the Constitution in S 79 contemplates. They are the judges because the Constitution was made subject to the Australian Courts Act 1828. In 1900 all judges were members of the common people. That was why it is the common law.

Pete Vex and others.

The history of the law is fascinating but is as I posted to Legal eagle, it's creation, construction, implementation and all about maintaining the power status quo. Be that some notion that tugging the fetlock to JC supposed authority, some hierarchical birth right 'betters', the wealthy therefore powerful and the practitioners. The latter are the self appointed, unofficial gate keepers. They operate in a world of precedents, unnecessarily complicated contorted definitions and Black Letter law. Which has little or nothing to do with equity/fairness/justice in any practical sense.

the law is a pseudo (limited/flawed) intellectual pursuit imposed on an emotional based personage.

The point is it (the law et al) doesn't account for the human factor and as such it its foundations are built on sand.

Rather than take that into account it has evolved a structure/architecture of successive layers and part fixes, Bad DIY tinkering. Therefore, continuing the building metaphor, it doesn't surprise me that bit keep falling off injuring those who *nominally* it *supposed* to protect. A bit like an Indian boarding house for the poor, it there for the benefit of the landlord not the tenants.

PS Hillsong etc is just another, unrepresentative, power hungry corporation that hides behind the screen of religion.

In one city area there were 5 pro development councilors and one state MP all linked to the same 'church'. now there are 1 CR and a different MP in another electorate (same church) but still in the same city's boundaries. BTW none either campaigned or advertises the philosophical agenda link or funding sources they all share.

Attacks on Hillsong and other Churches are misdirected. The real problem is the Church of Satan and the latter day demons. These latter day demons, are not the poor Policemen called upon to enforce the law, but the anti Christian Judges and Magistrates who really govern Australia. These people are in reality lawbreakers every day they sit without a jury, but they will not and do not accept any authority but their own. They are lawbreakers because every day they sit without a jury, or sentence someone to lose their licence or go to jail, they are breaking the law of the Constitution.

These latter day demons have no respect for any of the Parliaments in Australia that take our money and give us law, but do not insist all their laws are obeyed. The Commonwealth is the worst offender. Because every major Party in that Parliament has a State branch, they have instructed the Australian Federal Police not to enforce Commonwealth law except as a political tool. We thought Brendan O’Connor was different, but so far there has been no change.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 by its S 45 banned the Church of Latter Day Demons, by introducing a National Competition Policy in 1995. S 45 bans the exclusion of people like Belly from the working of the courts. As an Act making the Commonwealth an inclusive organisation, it would apply to courts if they were logical places. The last restrictive trade practice is that employed by lawyers.

If s 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 was applied, it would allow anyone to appoint any counsel they pleased. Free choice of representation in court, would end an enormous amount of injustice, and the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Trade Practices Act 1974 to the business of delivering justice, would see the hopes and aspirations of Paul Keating’s government realised. There is a You Tube presentation circulating denigrating Tony Abbott. If TA was prepared to guarantee that the Constitution will be followed, as Rudd did, and keep his word, he could just win

Without doubt PV you are a bright man, bogged in a swamp of your own making.
Christian? my history as a follower of God was a much less heated one, I gave no power to God in government or law.
He said, in the book I no longer believe in, give Cesar his dues.
Crown is a term, nothing else not anything to do with Christianity.
remember please the first church IN England was thrown out, by miss use of power from a monarch.
PV in every breath bloke, you scream in my ear, this is why we MUST/WILL one day become a republic.
Use that education, that brain, to understand your thought that Rudd MAY JUST WIN? is silly, given all your concerns, given the ETS debate, given Abbott spoiling tactics and slightly higher polls Rudd, will Be judged the best candidate and increase his majority.
I have no doubt both Rudd and Abbott are true Christians.
And no fear judges and magistrates are evil, out of touch non Representative yes for sure.
I look beyond the Queen and her consort for the best in the royal family William, his brother and yes their dad are about top of the heap, but ok to drink with have a bar b Q but bow?
come bloke fear not,,, saying we are proud to be Aussies, nothing against England but as a brother or sister not mum, Will not make the sky fall.

Nope, Pete V. is not yanking our chain at all.
A true believer is a sight to behold Peter. Good luck to you.

I have changed my mind. Good Prince William does not appear to be a very fervent believer in Godly matters, so I think he would make an excellent future King and Governor General of Australia!

The Commonwealth no longer bothers to affix a Royal Identifier on its Legislation. By S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 this is illegal. By their gross negligence in this respect, there have been created another eight illegitimate and illegal regimes in Australia.

This failure to accept the difference between a corporation and an individual, is the root cause of much evil. Victoria has reproduced the Statute that gave individuals equal rights to the Royal Family. It is the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X.. In it this passage appears.

Be it likewise declared and enacted by authority of this present parliament, that neither his Majesty not his privy council, have or ought to have any jurisdiction, power or authority , by English bill, petition, articles, libel or any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine draw into question, determine or dispose of the lands , tenements, hereditaments, goods or chattels of any of the subjects of this kingdom, but the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice , and by the ordinary course of law.

We have suffered under the erroneous presumption by all Parliaments that they are Sovereign. They are corporations subject to the will of every member of the body corporate. When we delegate our sovereignty, as the children of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, to any Parliament, we have reserve powers, (currently denied) to have the laws made by any Parliament tried according to law.

As Subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second resident in Australia, by allegiance to Her, we are entitled to regard ourselves as members of Her Commonwealth family. This passage casts upon the Crown the obligations contained in S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 to obtain a Royal Identifier the same as that affixed to the Constitution, so that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is given effect. The failure if Charles I to observe this law, led to his demise in 1649.

It has led to the demise of the Commonwealth as an effective legal entity. Long Live the Queen

I am currently in Victoria, and meeting some fascinating people. Like New South Wales there are enormous numbers of people quietly protesting the lawlessness of the Victorian Corporation. Yesterday I was in a Magistrates Court with one such protester. There are an estimated half million like minded people in Victoria, and a few who are starting to assert their sovereign right, held in common with Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, the lawful and legislated Sovereign of Australia, to not be put upon as if they were a corporation.

A corporation is a child of the Parliament. Because it is such an entity, and has no soul as such, a corporation has no legal rights except those granted by Statute. We are children of Almighty God, created in His Image, or so Hillsong Church and the Anglican Church teaches, and since we are such privileged people, we are equal to the sovereign in every respect.

The only authority which is greater than that of a Sovereign is Almighty God himself. One of Hillsong’s songs is In Your Freedom I shall live. They are long on the Holy Bible but in some ways short on the practical application of its teachings. They teach that as part of the Holy Family, or Royal Family if you like, by blessing others we are blessed ourselves. Jesus Christ was the greatest civil engineer of all time, and his teachings, adopted by the English as law, have ensured 800 years stability.

The Sheriff and Police in Victoria are confounded by these protesters. When the protesters ask for a valid Royal Identifier to be affixed to any court order or warrant, and shown to them, as sovereign individuals, the authorities leave mumbling to themselves. A valid Royal Identifier can only be affixed after a proper proceeding according to law.

Peter Spencer, John Wilson, and the myriad of their supporters who are scheduled to converge on Canberra on the 2nd February 2010 should be making it clear to the Federal Politicians that without a Valid Royal Identifier on their efforts, they are taking our money under false pretences

My Dear Peter V

what absolute twaddle & nonsense are you offering in this post, the question is about Australia growing up and becoming it's own 'person' not an appendage of the UK. so get back to the question and stop promoting a false church only intent on gouging money for the leaders from the disillusioned members.
QE2 as leader of 'The Church of England', by right of birth, has nothing to do with most Australians

The Queens loyal and equal servant King Belly, under Australian Law, does not have to bend his knee to anyone except God. He is granted by S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) absolute equality to the Crown or Sovereign, to commence and prosecute either civilly of criminally any offence against the laws of the land detected by him.

The people stopping him are all in the legal profession, that nest of vipers described in Matthew 3: 7-12. The vipers in the Bible were Pharisees and Sadducees and those today are the corporate slaves licenced to steal by the same type of Corporate State, that was oppressing the Jews two thousand years ago.

John the Baptist exhorted them to “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” In modern English, that Royal Tongue, it means conduct yourself in a manner pleasing to Almighty God. A manner pleasing to Almighty God is the manner prescribed by Jesus Christ. The conduct of courts: They were places of worship, where prayers were answered, but today they have become Temples of Commerce. It was not by chance that KR replaced JH. Almighty God was not pleased with JH, because he had left the fold, especially by inflicting arbitrary fines on sovereign individuals, on orders made by a public servant in the Workchoices Legislation.

There are still those in government who think like King Herod. He could and did arbitrarily execute all the male babies in Jerusalem. Jesus was taken away by Almighty God, to Egypt, outside his jurisdiction, and only returned after he died. Arbitrary jurisdiction was given up by Almighty God to Jesus Christ in John 5 Verses 22 and 23. Jesus Christ gave up arbitrary jurisdiction, in Luke 12 Verse 10-12, when he made denial of the Holy Ghost the only unforgivable sin. Summary exercise of power is abusive.

The central theme of Christianity is the Trinity. The Queen must subscribe to it, and only after the ruling of two or more gathered together, is law made. Repentance means to turn to the ultimate authority, Almighty God who has made everyone sovereign

I think you're losing them all Peter. I applaud your attempts of enlightening them to our true plight but I feel that using reference to the bible is lost in this day and age. By showing them with reference to the bible where religion has lead them and is leading them, you bring out their religious anti-isms. Unfortunate I know, that the true problem with all that is - has been a manipulation of religion past and present, soon as you try to use it to educate them you're toast!

For those that think I might be a religious nutcase as I believe you believe Peter to be, I can assure you I'm not one bit. But we need to understand that where our society has arrived and the laws that govern us have all stemmed from religion and still do.

Read what Peter is saying and try not to let your anti religious thoughts distract you from the truth in his words.

I might be wrong, but I don't think Peter actually believes in the Queen her self and that of our Monarchic governmental system, but that we're all sovereign and don't need all these bullsh!t labels to define us as sovereign individual human beings.

It's something that's bothered me all my life. The question of who has the right to govern any sovereign individual human being without their consent, whether by mob rule (democracy as you would call it) or other?

We're born free, yet none of us die free. I don't need a flag, king, queen, politician or anything to tell me that!

PV you most certainly know how to pull peoples chains.
You and I both know that grumpy old lady, her majestic what ever ,is Queen of Australia, hence the seal changes.
And you seem more than a little kind with that number of Victorians you find behind your opinion.
Now King Belly, no mate it would be the fastest abdication in history, and my speech would insure no one would ever want a monarch again.
The pure strangeness of it, so very many years after the magna carta yet some still want to keep a silly figure head, boring self serving old lady, as head of state?
If it will make you happy give the crown to Dame Edna, make her stable of Barry Humphrey stars her royal family.
Let her confer knighthoods on who she will instead of fat ex Polly's then I will enjoy being a serf.

I'm no Monarchist but I don't hate them. I have no problem with my history or the history of my nation. I bow to no King or Queen but if met face to face in formal circumstance I would be formally polite in the same way I would be to members of ANY royal family - and informally my greeting would be eye to eye and with friendly "G'day".

I ABSOLUTELY refuse to have anything to do with the Republic of Australian Cultural Cringe.

I am unsure just what you want to say spinner.
I too would act with good manners and very informal if meeting this family.
But cultural cringe?
Do you think wanting to be a republic, like Canada-or America is a cringe.
I have no intention in starting this thread to forget our history.
It is in my view a cultural cringe thinking being our own country is betraying our past/soldiers who fought/England .
A current e mail circulating showing our flag, British emblem and all, quotes southern cross and says changing it it a betrayal.
our history is not standing still one day people of-non British back ground will be the majority, I do not fear that, we are all Australians what value however their history?

Spinner,

If you are not a Monarchist, by definition you should support a Republican model of government.
One should not sit spinning on top of the fence, declare yourself!
To do so is neither 'cultural' nor a 'cringe'.
I would assume you would consider us as an independent and sovereign nation.
If so should we not have a home grown Head of State?

I absolutely "consider us as an independent and sovereign nation." - and in that respect I don't feel it necessary to "prove" anything to anyone. OF COURSE it's a cultural cringe to go around carrying on about having to show the world who we are! THEY already know - and so should we by now!

Some of you might have a crisis of identity but I certainly don't and it's painful to see fellow Aussies carrying on like such snivelling whimps.

And as for not being a Monarchist "by definition meaning one must support a Republican model of government" - I've never said I'm against being a Republic! - but the agenda pushed by what appears to be the mainstream Republican movement actually has little to do with being a true Republic. I'm not a monarchist but neither do I hold a chip such as to be an "anti-monarchist" - and to support the cause of a Republic one does NOT need to be anti monarchist. People who paint things in such sharp shades of black and white are fools and the kind of people who have led us into wars and ruin thru all the ages.

I not only consider it inevitable but actually strongly support becoming a Republic as long as it's done for the right reasons and in the right way - and chucking a national hissy fit like petulant teenagers divorcing themselves from their parents is not the right reason or way to do it - read again "the Republic of the Cultural Cringe"

I don't support the current "Australian Republican Movement" because as far as I'm concerned that organisation is a lie in both name and purpose - it SHOULD be called the Australian Anti-Monarchist Movement - thus vacating the space it wastefully occupies so REAL Republicans can get on with the SERIOUS job of carrying the cause of a true Australian Republic. If such an organisation existed I would sign up immediately.

Spinner I still do not get it, you are quite wrong judging me a wimp.
Royal family may well have plenty who support it, equally many do not.
While I tell many storys that do not flatter that mob, it was not my intention to do so.
In a little tin shed picture show in Bargo, my mums home town, my dad refused to rise for God save the King, I stayed seated with him, a child but with him.
That town had lost many in ww1 and ww2 the first needlessly, in the name of England.
the cringe that took place, the reaction to saying not my king, was a cultural cringe not standing up to be counted.
Spinner you must surely, can be nothing other, than a monarchist.

Well said Spinner, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
I'm surprised how many can't see what your talking about.

I should probably say that I'd probably be a Republican, however:

Personally I have no time for ANY unelected leader, or for that matter any form of symbolic figurehead at all- they both belong in the history books and fairytales.

The idea of people bowing to and idolizing anyone as a divine figure based on his job is really kind of sad, and paying a guy a great salary to do nothing but cut ribbons at public functions is, well, do I need to say it?

I'm liking a suggestion for filling the potentially useless role of "ceremonial head of state" with a trained kangaroo a lot actually- it's really no less silly than a person, but a lot cheaper (and would make better international publicity).

Thoughts?

Raw Mustard I hope that is your considered opinion.
In debate, in truly talking about any subject.
It is my view we should not let our personal views of others control how we think.
And yes, no surprise we think differently, I do not say me and you but every one.
The debate is, well I think it is, did Williams visit truly change the republican debate?
Do we want a King.
Or a republic.
Now I believe if politicians had not pressed their own wishes, very wisely used by monarchists, we may have voted for a republic.
You Raw Mustard and I can be wrong, often we will be.
But in spinners claim, with your support, both monarchists and republicans do not have a leg to stand on.
If it ain't broke do not fix it.
In two posts you both take at best a marginal view, one that says openly if we want any change we are cringer's/wimps/ maybe Australian.
All views always have value, some if only to highlight human nature can some times be a blinding thing.
Figure heads.
Americas system is not one I support but with refinement, with publics right to select, to Honor a figure head?
ok by me.
Candidates?
Come up with some.
Mine is true, Dame Edna Average.
No just think
The world would see we love a laughter and those Gladys landing in the lap of stern faced old men amuses me.

Belly you need to READ what I've posted! PLEASE! - I have in no way said that wanting change is a cringe: I'm saying that wanting it for the petty reasons which I've attacked is the classic cliched "cultural cringe".

You KEEP trying to paint this in black and white - "if you're not agin the Royals then ye be FER 'em B'god!" - My point is that they are irrelevant and therefor it does no justice to Australia to keep POINTLESSLY figuring them in our future plans and aspirations. Like I said: the world KNOWS who we are and so should we - so yes the British royals are NOT relevant. To keep holding them up as meaning anything at all IS cultural cringe.

It occurs to me that we're all making a big mistake in even using the term "Monarchy" and any of it's forms as that suggests an active role of governance - delete all forms of "monarch" from my posts and replace instead with Windsor Royals and see if it all makes more sense?

I can still remember God Save the Queen being played in cinemas and other public venues and my family never stood either.... But I remember one occasion where for some reason I didn't and still don't fathom (I was a small boy) - perhaps it was Anzac day? - there was war footage of Aussie soldiers marching on the screen - and EVERYONE stood. Even then I understood we were paying homage to the soldiers.

And until they died out in the 1960's I had relatives sending money back to the IRA so I've hardly had an upbringing that figured much in the way of Queen and Glory...

On the subject of who / what should a new "Head of State" be: the answer is so simple it's ridiculous.

The PM - or whatever that role ends up being called.

By this I mean that one thing I'm certain does confuse the world at large right now is this odd institution we have called "Governor General". I imagine there have been countless whispered conversations amongst foreign dignitaries along the lines of "so who's this? - the Prime Minister is coming next week - so who exactly is this one??".

By default our head of government - PM - is pretty much filling the role already - much the same as the American president - so my money is on simply doing away with a separate and superfluous position altogether.

Maybe not a trained Kangaroo - so would a Galah do ok instead? ;-)

Simple.

I will meet you half way spinner, I still want an end to the wealthy Windsor family leaching on any tax payers.
Yes England's too.
I shrivel up in shame on reading the old dear, look no I do not think of her as a dear old thing, never liked her.
But if seated at a table next to some one who bores her she just places her purse on the floor and the person is whisked away to another seat.
Have you heard the pompous way they talk, seen the way they had to be pushed to publicly morn for Diana.
Fact is the Queen mum was a LADY, loved her, feel sorry for Chuck, his kids seem ok.
But unlikely to invite old bloke the rude Duke and his bride to the next sausage sizzle at Belly's hideaway.
Those corgis, better with a few blue cattle dogs soon get Phil moving.
Laugh then with me, just think she actually thinks she is better than us.

Belly wrote:
"Raw Mustard I hope that is your considered opinion."

Everything I write on here is "my" opinion, Belly.

Belly wrote:
"In debate, in truly talking about any subject.
It is my view we should not let our personal views of others control how we think."

Wise words my friend, I have no personal view of you, Belly, so whatever I've said has not been swayed by those views. It's just that Spinners views parrot my own, hence why I wrote what I did.

Belly wrote:
"And yes, no surprise we think differently, I do not say me and you but every one."

Ah you mean opinions are like ars... err you know how the saying goes, everyone has one :)

Belly wrote:
"The debate is, well I think it is, did Williams visit truly change the republican debate?"

I don't think so. It's had no effect on my view of Australia becoming a republic, nor the circle of friends I keep. They all still think royals are a waist of time and so do I and they all pretty much feel the same as before his arrival about the republic issue. They're also firmly in touch with their identities as sovereign Australians.

Belly wrote:
"Now I believe if politicians had not pressed their own wishes, very wisely used by monarchists, we may have voted for a republic."

Do you honestly, with all your heart believe that we Aussies, the ones that truly call themselves Dinky-Di are that silly? And no that does not make us monarchists. I feel you might be a bit out of touch on this one.

Belly wrote:
"You Raw Mustard and I can be wrong, often we will be."

Hehehe! Ain't that the truth, but lets no forget! We have a great privilege in this country and that is our freedom to debate, let's be mindful of those that would take that away from us, republican or monarchist.

Belly wrote:
"But in spinners claim, with your support, both monarchists and republicans do not have a leg to stand on."

Ah sorry Belly. I'm feeling my comprehension skills are lacking on this one?

Do you mean that our view does not allow for a winner?

If you do, then to us the status quo will be fine until a true leader steps up to the plate and offers real change that will benefit all of us honestly.

Belly wrote:
"Do we want a King. Or a republic."

No we don't want a king and no we don't want "the type" of republic that is being foisted upon us.

We're simple people really in touch with our identities and reality. If a republic is not going to change our way of life in any meaningful way then why bother? You see, some of us don't give a rats about titles and all that hooplah. All we care about is how is it going to improve our lives. Will it significantly reduce our taxes? Will it give us fixed interest rates? Will it remove the corrupt, thieving banking system? Will it lower the cost of living? Will it reduce road congestion? Will it better educate our children? Will it prevent corruption in parliament? Will it substantially reduce government? Will it prevent corporate rape of our environment? Will it give us true land rights? and the list goes on. And to that we say no it won't! So why bother?

Belly wrote:
"In two posts you both take at best a marginal view, one that says openly if we want any change we are cringer's/wimps/ maybe Australian."

Should that have been Un-Australian?

See this is where I see a flaw in you Belly (without prejudice of course)

Spinner wrote:
"Some of you might have a crisis of identity but I certainly don't and it's painful to see fellow Aussies carrying on like such snivelling whimps."

You've taken this to heart as being an attack on your views and your patriotism.
I see it as Spinner trying to tell you, you don't need to change your flag or system of government to know your identity as a true Aussie oi oi oi. Perhaps not the best choice of words, but he got his point across :)

Belly wrote:
"Americas system is not one I support but with refinement, with publics right to select, to Honor a figure head?
ok by me."

See now you're seeing it my way, where as before I understood you to be in favour of the past model?

Yes I too would favour the American model with refinement. We have hindsight in our favour and could improve on it immensely, but that's for another discussion.

Hopefully Belly I have given you a good view into my thoughts and those of many of my friends and I would suspect many true Dinky-Di Aussies.

Raw Mustard I have a broken index finger, I typed in Un Australian and hit the wrong key, often of late.
Spell check did the rest, not letting me scroll down while re editing.
Now I could post or start again.
Now I learn from your posts, here and in other places.
Clearly you are content to be you, I am content to be me.
My views are not likely to change because of yours.
I if I sat down to draw a picture of you could never even start until I had drawn the smirk.
And ,sorry , but I can never see myself mixing with folk who think being proud to be Aussie, wanting a republic is wrong.
In truth I would fill my party with Royalists first, at least their honesty is valued.
I ask are you Australian by birth?

Yes I'm Aussie born - both grand dads were Aussie and both served in the Pacific Theatre (by which I mean they didn't go to North Africa or Europe).

There is no smirk and you are still not reading my posts - you keep accusing me of not wanting a Republic - which is totally untrue! I not only consider it inevitable but indeed support an Australian Republic but not founded on the basis of establishing an identity that already exists, throwing off "shackles" (instututional or otehrwise) that don't exist or spiting a "Monarchy" that essentially isn't real - or at the very least isn't relevant.

LET GO OF IRRELEVANT ISSUES for heavens sake and try to look at this thing positively and in terms of real issues!

There are in fact more serious issues Australia has to deal with - and in some respects being a Republic might help if for no other reason than psychologically helping people to cross bridges that they seem currently unable to manage. We have allowed multiculturalism to shift to multiracism - the former is a single common culture made up of diversity (the so called melting pot) and which is greater than the sum of it's parts - the latter is simply many parts which at best work in harmony and at worst conflict with others - and it threatens to drag the whole down to the lowest common denominator. We also use the devisive, selective and subjective notion of Racism instead of simply applying the much more realistic, universally relevant and flexible concept of prejudice.

Belly wrote:
"Clearly you are content to be you, I am content to be me.
My views are not likely to change because of yours."

I'm not trying to change your views, not ever would I hold that right.
We are here because of something precious and that is our freedom to express our own view points. Would your republic enhance those freedoms or take them away? This is of great concern to me and I see the republican model suggested as not in my benefit.

Belly wrote:
"I if I sat down to draw a picture of you could never even start until I had drawn the smirk."

Now you're writing in riddles?

Belly wrote:
"And ,sorry , but I can never see myself mixing with folk who think being proud to be Aussie, wanting a republic is wrong."

Wow! A long bow you have drawn there, Belly. Quite a stretch doncha think?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Never did I see someone say it is wrong for an Aussie to be proud, or wrong to want a republic, quite the opposite in fact.

Belly wrote:
"In truth I would fill my party with Royalists first, at least their honesty is valued."

See there's that flaw again. Firstly I would question their honesty, but really, are you suggesting I have been dishonest with you?

Belly asks:
"I ask are you Australian by birth?"

Yes I am, and have lived in more parts of Australia than most and for the best part of 50 years, continue to have the unique privilege of mingling with a wide variety of Australian folk from all walks of our great land.

How about you Belly, how much of Australia have you experienced?
Have you lived in more than one state?
Have you visited all the states and territories more than once?

Are these questions even important? Or does one somehow need particular credentials to hold a view on Australia becoming a republic?