Fundamental principle of democracy is equality of all people in society.
Fundamental principle of monarchy is superiority of monarch and his/her family over all other people in society.
Are democracy and monarchy compatible in principle?
Can Australia claim to be a democratic society while having a monarch as a head of state?

yeah its too insane for words aint it
were a colony founded by royal charter
via an axct of and approved of by the brit parlement
[ie shouldnt be allowed into the un cause we arnt a 'n']
yet we were heavilly involved in founding it

we got a so called queen
but the queen isnt 'the crown'
we got crown lands./..but they dont belong to the people

we got one lot that claims to rule by right
[or by god given deed of grant]
telling the peons when to go and die.
when to pay taxes

running arnmed forces
for when the peons rebell
and thinking of ever more taxes
to invade other counties[nations]..other kingdumbs

then we got the ones we voted for
that come from a selected elect pool..via a two partyy system..that lords it over the peons..taxinf us to death with ever more levies taxes and compulsory uni-lateral contracted terms and ever more obligations in lue of rights or dividend]..or fair share

no 9 cant se the difference cause there isnt
heck im not hurting you...they are
no its not me its them

plausable deneyability
its the ctown..no its the queen..no its the un
no its the world bank..its \federal govt..no its state..no its local councxils//no its ngo's..no its you..heck its me

now bow down
bend arround
i got something big
just for you

yes we do aqway with big kings
and elect little kings
per suburb..or even per street
they are there to replace ALL other kings/govts/councils

HE/she..is the only one who cant collect our tax

how about it your majesty
sign the sun treaty
adopt the wikseed

bah why bother

when we vote
we stand under[claim lower standing]
put in place a trustee to manage our affairs and estates
we are legally imbisiles..[wards of the court's..in compitant to manage our own affairs]..but im sick of explaining to slaves why they are slave..enslaved]

Would any one care to tell me I am wrong.
Royal family's began first as tribal Chieftains.
The strongest boldest even brightest at first ruled.
Then passed that rule on down the family.
At times inter wed others imported with some relation ship to past rulers after part of that family tree fell over.
Why then do we bother electing our politicians?
In some well told story some country's leaders end up back at the foot of the English Royal Family Tree.
So no, elect our leaders, no excepting a family that has no reason and seems in all of history to have inbreed to keep a power that is not theirs.
A any dinner ,this tour or any day, our Queen? not mine actually! only has to put her purse on the floor and people will whisk the person next to her away as unsuitable to sit near her!
I am not amused.

Can Australia claim to be a democracy while having
a monarch as Head of State?

Yes of course.

Australia is a federal nation. It is also a
parliamentary democracy.

Dennis Pryor in his satirical dictionary,
"Political Pryorities: How to get on top of
Australian Politics," summed it up beautifully,
with his tongue firmly in his cheek:

"The illusion that the Australian government works,
or should work, on the same principles as the
British government. The similarities between the two
systems are largely those of decor, like the use of
the mace. The major difference between the two systems
is that Australia is a federation, a concept totally
incomprehensible to the British.An appeal to the
'Westminister system' is a slogan used by
Opposition parties in an attempt to trick their
opponents into foolish resignations."

By strictest definition, the concepts are not compatible, as democracy means 'public rule' and monarchy means 'monarch rules';
In the case of constitutional monarchies (eg us), the monarch simply does not actually rule anything and serves as a figurehead, while the people in practice actually rule- so it is possible in the way we do it.

Though personally I'd rather not have a ceremonial head of state that requires our own upkeep. Having said that, as we do not actually pay the British Royal Family a cent ourselves, I would be quite happy ditching the Governor-General alone;

When we can have dreadful, badly designed & built buildings listed by the national trust, [what or who ever the hell that is], as important heritage, surely the heritage of us as a people is worth preserving.

The main argument against a monarch is that one day, one of them might turn out to be like Julia.

Dear Hasbeen,

You need not worry. The Queen does not play a day-to-day
role in Australian government.

Lexi,

She doesn't play a day-to-day role in UK politics either.

That's the reason she's been around so long.

Dear Wobbles,

Nah. Royalty to Britain is what Disneyland is
to the US.

So true Lexi, but with so much more class.

There is no room or place for the monarch in a liberal democratic state, if that is what we think we are.

But worse than just having the UK sovereign as ours, is the fact that we have no 'wall of separation' here between church and state.

If we are to move to being a republic then we have to create a wall of separation, divorcing government support for any and all religion.

Unfortunately, the goons who say they represent the public voice for an Australian republic, are not supporters of this wall of separation, being mostly Roman Catholics, who would stand to lose a swag of preferential treatment from the state.

Of course, were we ever to move to republic status, the idea of having a president that can oversee our behaviour and guard against a bad government is merely a recreation of the monarch concept.

How pathetic are we?

So, having created a plural liberal democratic republic, we need to take the next step and ensure that our two houses of parliamnet are the means of government, with no faux monarch sitting atop it and all of us.

Strictly , our monarchical system and that of Britain 's are compatible with democracy [ generally understood as appointing governments by popular vote of all adult citizens ] .

However , monarchy is quite incompatible with modernity and respect for human beings , regardless of race , creed , colour or social origin . Where law provides that the head of state , even a largely ceremonial one , can be appointed only from members of one family ,that law treats every citizen , not being a member of that family , as being inferior .

If it was said that the monarch could only be a white man , there would be considerable discontent [ even though , except on two occasions only a white man has held the position ] . Yet , so many accept that only the Windsor family may provide the monarch .

It was nauseating to see Quentin Bryce and Julia Gillard curtsy , bending their knees , to this boring foreign aristocrat . In doing so , they have humiliated not only themselves , but the Australian nation . At the very least , they could have agreed , in advance , not to do this act .

The visitor 's British retainers could have been told in advance and , if they deemed this to be unacceptable , they could have been told that neither Bryce nor Gillard would greet Mrs Windsor . David Flint or Michael Kirby could do so , instead .

Incidentally , male Governors General and Prime Ministers are not expected to curtsy . Why should their female counterparts ? This is a further example of the unfairness and antiquated nature of this monarchical system .

I agree exactly with Blue Cross;

And personally, the fact that our "Republican" models have;
-no substantial separation between church and state as a driving force
-another stratified figurehead that only serves to drain taxes and symbolically lower us as people to peasants who need a king
-absolutely no democratic reforms or improved accountability
...Ensures my ongoing inability to care one bit about the issue, other than a point of discussion.

Dear Hasbeen,

So true. Her Majesty certainly has a lot of
"class." And that is something that can't be
said for many of the royals. BTW - A pity
that our Pm couldn't do her the courtesy of
a curtsy - after all we're not a Republic - yet.
Bad manners - and no class there.

Sorry Lexi you are wrong
Gillard no mate of mine acted with in excepted protocol.
Its a beat up.
Gillard leads a party that has as its platform REPUBLICANISM.
Aussies are friendly, PK COPED a verbal flogging for? putting his arm around the aging Lady's waist!
Diana's death was a time Lizzie wanted to hide until she was forced in to the spotlight.
What is special about this family? toe sucking, extramarital affairs.
Her great wealth.
At age 4 I remember returned Australian solders,who sat while God save the King was played.
DID Howard curtsy/bow/or shake hands?
Beggar the old girl!
I too would do so, she is nothing more than an old girl who should step a side and let her son have a go.
Who else, do we want Gillard to curtsy to, Americas President?
Go home LIZ take the rude totally insulting bloke you wed with you.

Belly,

It's more about protocol than anything...all a big ritual (which humans seem to enjoy no end)

Since when do reigning monarchs step aside so that their offspring can have a go? (not bloody likely : )

Why protocol at all, filthy rich and supposedly high ranking, means nothing to me. Today is one of those days the world is going to end.

Dear Belly,

As a Prime Minister - personal feelings should not
enter into the way that you behave. The point that
I was merely trying to make was - the Queen is
still Australia's Head Of State - and as such
the Prime Minister according to protocol should
have done her the courtesy in acknwledging that fact
(personal feelings aside). It would have been the gracious
and correct thing to do. If we were a Republic, that
of course would be a different matter altogether.
The private lives of the royals do not come into
this equation.

Lexi

The Prime Minister greeted Queen Elisabeth with the same level of respect as she does for any visiting dignitary; a curtsey (if that is what you expected) is an anachronism in this day and age. In addition, there is no definitive requirement for a woman to curtsey to any members of the Royal family, a nod or bow is acceptable.

As for topic:

Democracy + monarchy = oxymoron.

I say, old chaps, the antipodean media take this sort of thing rather seriously, don't you think?

Did you see Kathy Lette in her "twin-set" made of material printed with corgis wearing crowns? Now there's an (ex)colonial gal who doesn't cower in awe of the royal personage. The Queen loved it!

I think we should get over it : )

Yep, right there, that is the point that fired me up.
WITH NO DOUBT! Gillard acted within current protocol.
And is suffering at the hands of bias/Royalist toe suckers, and the hidden Truth.
She was nothing but respectful.
To one of the worlds biggest fakes!
Lizzie is quite rude at times.
Phil most of the time.
And yes to democracy no to Royal family's.
Old Liz comes near my flowers I will set the dogs on her.

OK I admit it. I've got a soft spot
for Her Majesty.

Belly, you made me laugh out loud - I can
just picture your setting your dogs with
her trying to smell your flowers.
Loved it.

Lexi,

That's nothing....I've got a soft spot for Prince Charles.

Have you read his book "Harmony"?

dont mind me
just doing a bit of update housekeeping

note kiddies..the protest against the 1%
was cleared away this morning

seems the one percent...wants a mal-borne tram ride
right through where you 99%..are thinking to pro=test

dopnt you lot get protocol
the figure head might dare to ask questions
thus no hint of dicent must be alowed into her delicate ears nor eyes
[nor mind bnor thought]

anyhow..you got moved
cause the truth needs to be by airbrushed[hushed]..photo proto=call

there was another point
[re protocol..the hrh..extends her hand unto woman
to assist you to rise...from your eye contact curtecy..
and so you on yiour bended knee,,not wobble..while arising
still holding eye contact

that the liar ju
bowed [hiding her eyes]
revealed much to hrh

so bend your knee
hold eye contact

do not shake
she has no power over you
unless like me you took oath..

your born free
why are you chosing to play ignorant
she is cusstodian..of the common weal/wealth

but surrounded by ignorants
dont know what the real problems are
cause those who cant even look her in the eyes

are liars
cheats and thieves
colluduing treason..upon her majesties trust
her people and their estates...realise the greatness within others!

as well as with/in thyself]

Lexi -

"Royalty to Britain is what Disneyland is to the US."

I think the Disney characters are more believable. Mickey Mouse would make an excellent King.

Meanwhile, enjoy this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlPzb9lbe64

Wobbles being so unhappy must be hard, you have my sympathy.

I have been rude, with deliberate forethought, in this thread.
While Julia Gillard is no mate of mine.
She is our prime minister.
Not the wife of one.
Not a direct servant as is the Governor General, Gillard is not required to humble us, or her self.
I very much doubt, any woman, any man, in the world, should be bowed to.
My ramble in the news this morning found a story from NSW northern Rivers.
Bloke, I like already, named Windsor, has offered to take Liz cat fishing, but she would have to skin them!
He say every one is equal in his home, goodonya bloke!
If a told my two Mini Foxies to bite anyone, they would laugh, and kiss the target,they love every one.
So why the anger.
Gillard, look and learn, is being used, her unpopularity is being used by a lie,she acted within protocol.
And my remarks about Royal family rudeness? understated!
Liz once very nice looking was never a patch on Diana, History is full, of partly hidden, affairs wrong actions, even one son trotting around dressed as a NAZI!
OK every family has its black sheep.
Are we aware, it has only been the last 80 years,that Royal family's stopped inbreeding on purpose?

Is Philip Elizabeth's cousin?
Charles is not that weird, he won a west Australian Stock mans peeing comp.
Seems he wet the tree further up than any one,shame about his eyesight.
Loverly lady he wed is ok but last one was great!
Royal family? we seem convinced being a celebrity makes some better than the family up the road,why?

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/TheQueensroleinAustralia.aspx

Saw nothing about the old girl being wed to her cousin, almost impossible if wedding a Royal not to.
Poor old Phil gets the Sharpe end of her tongue, most for walking Corgi Pooh in to the carpet.
Now if she learns to play cricket, well maybe I would duck, but only if she is a fast bowler

Under what system of Government were our parliaments formed and appointed? Please tell me how we can actually improve on the current signatory on legislation?

Philo, Mate, I am aware of your advancing age, and Christian back ground.
Lets face it, I am no teenager.
I intend to take my brain to my grave.
To have an understanding that todays youth is no worse, maybe better than you and I in our youth.
That just as we oversaw change they too will.
ROYALISTS hide, like a kid up a tree, behind the view the sky will fall if we recognize this truth.
They are a stand alone entertainment, without power, other than the fortune they amassed from the British tax payer.
I researched the inbreeding of Royalty.
Will not bother posting, it gets a bit needlessly provocative, a lot is American far right.
But the trail, from tribalism, to chieftain to King is there.
Philip is 2nd or 3rd cousin to his wife.
Charles was distant cousin to his first, and second wife.
Camilla, his second wife is closely related to his son William!
Some Royal family died out, because they interbreed.
Some illnesses developed that lead to insanity.
Your need off your God, and a left over from our emergence from caves, a once strongest rules tribal leader/Royalty is excepted.
But have faith in humanity.
And reconsider your view.
Do you truly, in a world that see,s America/China/Russia/ stand we will fall if we except our Royal family is only a never ending showman's fairground stall.

belly..quote..""Your need of your God,""

mate there is no difference [apparently]
the queen claims to be the pope
claims a god given right

""and a left over
from our emergence from caves,""

again correct
when jesus came..it was to reveal
we dont need priests..we can communicate with the good god..one to one

""once strongest rules tribal leader/Royalty is excepted""

there are no exceptions
[to whom much is given
much more was only to be expected].

""But have faith in humanity.""

we got too many faulse gods
thgat seek to lord it over the 'faithfull'
instead of serving the de-serving

""And reconsider your view."'

why is one mans vieuw any better than any other mans vieuw?

who is to judge any more right than any other?

""Do you truely, in our world
see,s America/China/Russia/""

ie state's
arificial 'persons'
corperate dead fictions
lording it over the living

""stand""
while we stand under them
[ie while we fail..while we get austerity]

""we will fall
if we except our Royal family
is only a never ending showman's fairground stall.""

well ol mate
thats up to them isnt it?

they have been given too much
that one percent...must fall..before these
corperatised fictional states kill us all..

how to explain to you mr bell
that the crown..isnt the queen
its a corperate fiction..that facilitates
thieving the land and the wealth..from 'the people'

look at how much england has huge estates
with massive mansions...while your parents served the lord and master

how they can steal half your wages
yet you get exiled for stealing half a loaf of bread

OUG I make no demands on you or your God.
Remember,as is not unusual in people who seek truth, I have followed other paths and once yours.
My travel on your road found it littered with body's of the truly lost.
And the truly using it as a fast path to wealth or status.
I found to the very good.
Mate, honest, IF you right now, could give me evidence God existed I could never return to his feet.
Heaven is here and now for me, happiness and pain, even fear but life is great.
I do not want to cut my country's ties with England.
Just change things a little, let them be there for us to beat in sports.
As a mate/cousin/brother but not Mother.
I am not blaspheming mate.
A heaven that asked me to sit at the feet of Jesus, his Dad, and not sneak out the back for a Bundy.
Not watch and remember as a nice woman pases by.
Mate a never ending life? of total boredom?
Story, true, midst my Christianity, but not unlike me always.
I gave and gave till it hurt.
Furnished a flat,top to bottom, a bloke in need, my brother in fact.
He sat with me at my Christmas table and thanked Jesus for my contribution to his happiness that year $6.000
He represents to me a Christian.
So forgive me but I can not return to your path,am happy to be me.

It seems to me that it is not important how good, or bad (or in between) the monarch and royal family can be.
I believe it is also not important how ancient and culturally traditional the monarchy is.
It seems to me that it is not important whether a monarch is a real ruler, or ruler with limited authority, or just historical and cultural symbol of a nation.
Yet, it is of crucial importance whether existence of monarchy contradicts to fundamental principles preached by a nation.
If we preach democracy and equality of all people in society, how can we accept and support that someone and someone's family are exceptional in comparison to any other people only because of particular rights received by birth?
My personal feeling is that, these days, it is shameful to be a monarch accepting exclusive rights over the rights of other people. However, it seems that these days monarchs do not share in this view, as no one of them has denounced monarchy and monarchical privileges.

Dear Andreas,

I don't think that you're correct in what you're
telling us about the "Royals.".

The Queen has made it quite clear
in one of her speeches here in Australia quite
some time ago - that she
would remain our monarch only for as long as we
wanted her. That it was our decision regarding
that subject. I imagine the same would apply to the
people of the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth.
She'll stay for as long as people want her. She
took an oath of office to serve her people at
her coronoation and that's what she intends doing.
Up until we tell her we no longer want her.

It's no use blaming the royals for a decision that's
ours to make. If we want to be a Republic - we simply
have to vote on it. It's up to us. Blaming others for
what we currently have is making all of us appear
as failures.

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for your message. I agree with you: it is finally up to our votes to decide on the destiny of monarchy in Australia.
However, to me, there is another problem.
I cannot understand those modern people (monarchs) who actually say: "Well, people want me to be above them, so, I will. I accept my own exclusivity because of my birth and I will keep it until I am forced (by voters, for example) to lose it". I believe, it is shameful these days to be above other people and to have privileges by birth.
If a monarch would denounce monarchy as a principle of modern society, it could be the best achievement of monarchical rule.

Andreas Berg',
The Queen took an oath to serve the people of the Commonwealth. When she took the oath she was barefooted and clothed in a servants gown as a sign of subjection to God and the service of the people. It is the State that has given her the role of Office as Queen as guardian of the Constitution and approving of laws imposed on her people by the Government under the constitution.

The idea in not as you seem to imply being some superior Dictator over the people, but one whom the Constitution accepts as representing all the people before the Law – “The Crown”.

Hasbeen,

Thanks for caring but I'm not unhappy.

However, having no sense of humor plus a deep-seated hatred of all things Gillard must be a burden.

Sorry to our threads Author.
I did not address your question first post.
You have done it for me, in every word.
We would have been a Republic, if politicians had not split the vote.
We will be.
And Philos view will, as sure as the sun sets,become a minority one.
I ask posters to note.
Elderly males are mostly fixed in the Royalty is good lists.
I am proudly Australian, and some who came from other country's too want the right to be free of institutionalized snobbery.

Dear Andreas,

The Queen is in her eighties and nearing the
end of her reign. Any hope of change will
possibly come with her grandson Prince William.
If and when he comes to the British throne.
I feel that change is a future inevitability.
As they say the only constant in life is change.

We've already seen quite a few changes in
the monarchy over the years. Being able to marry
a divorcee is one recent example that comes to mind.
I'm sure that you can think of many more.

In the past a king was forced to abdicate. Another
change
was of course the state funderal of a denounced
Princess (Diana) - in which the Queen was forced to go
against her wishes by
public opinion. As well as being force
to fly the flag at half mast
over Buckingham Palace as a sign of respect.
Change sometimes is forced
onto reluctant monarchs by their subjects.

Belly sounds just like the typical Republican Irish anti British former Catholic. There is actual angry snobbery in his own view of the Crown.

"Fundamental principle of democracy is equality of all people in society."

Correct. In mathematical notation:

A = B = C = ... = X = Y = Z = 0

"Fundamental principle of monarchy is superiority of monarch and his/her family over all other people in society."

In other words,

M > A ; M > B ; ... therefore M > 0

"Are democracy and monarchy compatible in principle?"

Obviously not: M cannot be both 0 and greater than 0.

"Can Australia claim to be a democratic society while having a monarch as a head of state?"

Firstly yes - because anyone can claim anything, even if it's false. Still, this can be technically true, provided that the head-of-state is not superior, and equals zero like the rest of us. In other words, it is possible to have a monarch without a monarchy.

At the bottom line it doesn't matter: current society is constructed to make us 0's. So long as others have power to dictate to us how we live, it makes no difference whether those others are 51% of the population or a single monarch. Between those options, I prefer the later as the lesser evil.

The Crown represents the people, and in Australia is formaly represented by the Governor General who signs all Legislation and Laws formed and approved by our Government. We are ruled not by a Monarch but by a Government who forms our Laws. Currently we have a minority Government dictated to by the Greens on issues like Carbon taxes etc, for which the People did not vote.

All the nonsense talk about the snobbery of the Queen is irelavent as snobbery is more unjust among many of our Politicians, who take vows to serve the people but are in Government to serve their own agendas.

BELLY/quote..""A heaven that asked me""

heaven asks nothing mr bell
it serves us...like a monarc should
jesus said who will lead you must serve you
not serve..*only the elites adgendas

""to sit at the feet of Jesus,"'
thats just baulderdash[cccccrap]
sure its an image..but a wrong image

""his Dad"'

no we dont sit by his feet either
so why should be bow and scrape low..to a 'queen',

why should we vacate the enjoyment of our river..just cause she wants to boat..[who made her my boss..]

she is my servant..not visaversa

""..and not sneak out the back for a Bundy."'

yeah i will miss booze
but the only reason they dont got booze
is because fruit juice dont rot in heaven

[thus jesus statement..to drink only new whine]
cause fruit dont rot..[in heaven]

""Not watch and remember
as a nice woman..pases by.""

in heaven there is no need to remember
only to love..that delightfull woman on your arm..

""Mate a never ending life?""
yes life never ending..not death

mate many of us are dead..here...
[lol looking remembering..lol]

""of total boredom?""

mate every second is filled
doing what we want to do

being with..who we chose to be
doing..what we chose to do

""I gave and gave till it hurt.""

and each gift of giving..has its harvest..manyfold
so much so..many never seek to return to here

even then a few try to return..and even their wish is granted

""So forgive me but I can not return"'

nothing to forgive ol china plate

""to your path""

lol we each have our own path

there is only the way[tao]
..as we each chose to progress
or regress..along the same path,way tao

""am happy to be me.""

yep me too mate

Wobbles I must have one, I find yours quite good, now you have chosen to show it.

However, even though Gillard must be the easiest person to hate, currently on earth, I really can't manage such a strong emotion for her.

Sure I hate almost everything she does & stands for, but actually I despise her, she really is not worth the effort of hating.

Dear Hasbeen,

I think you've got to big a heart to hate
anyone.

Thank you Lexi.

I can't imagine actually hating anyone, which perhaps indicates I've had a relative easy life. I am a little dismayed at the rampant hate we sometimes see on our TV screens, but if you haven't lived those peoples lives, it makes it hard to understand where that can come from.

I'm sure you have never hated anyone. Even if you do hate some peoples actions, that is quite different to hating them personally.

Dear Hasbeen,

I've disliked a few people quite intensely -
and then realised that it was hurting me
more than them. Also, as I get older I
find that we've all got our own stories
and reasons for our behaviour.

The more we learn what makes certain people tick -
the better we understand them. (Even pollies) ;-)
I guess.

Looking back I can not avoid I never ever hated any one.
And in truth never knew at hate filled person who was not a little bit evil.
Now I got angry, very much so, but not even close to hate.
We non haters are more likely to feel sorry for haters.

Dear Belly,

I know what a softie you really are.