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 > Elizabeth II - A Queen For The People.

Elizabeth II - A Queen For The People.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
I've recently read an editorial in The Age
that stated that Elizabeth II has been one
of the longest serving monarchs in English
history, surpassing the record reign of 63 years
and seven months set by her great-great-grandmother
Victoria.

I agree with the editorial. It is a remarkable
achievement - one that may never be beaten.

I thought it would be interesting to read what
posters on this forum feel about the Queen - and
especially what recollections they may have of
her?

Personally, I should make it clear that I admire her
greatly.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 12 September 2015 1:54:56 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
Well Foxy, she may well be a grand old lady, and I am sure that she and some of the other Royals have brought in some much needed distractions, and tourist dollars, for England over the years.

However, she should not be Australia's Queen now because we need to finally cut the apron strings of a country so far away from us, and get on with the business of just dealing with Australian business.
Bring on the Republic.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 12 September 2015 9:36:51 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
Dear Suse,

Here's the article that I mentioned earlier.
I think it sums up Her Majesty's attributes
rather well. As for a Republic?
I'm sure that Her Majesty would approve if that's
what the people of Australia really wanted.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/elizabeth-ii-a-queen-for-the-people-20150908-gjhq8p.html
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 12 September 2015 9:50:11 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
//However, she should not be Australia's Queen now because we need to finally cut the apron strings of a country so far away from us, and get on with the business of just dealing with Australian business.//

I've seen a few commentators suggest that we should wait until Good Queen Bess dies and move to a Republic when Prince Charles when inherits the throne. Given how long her mother lived, we might be waiting a while.

I don't see that it matters. She doesn't have any influence on Australian politics. When the Australian Parliament appoints a new Governor General she rubber stamps the appointment. That's all she really does aside from posing in portrait so we can put her head on our money and showing up on the ABC once a year to deliver her message of Christmas goodwill, which thankfully it is not compulsory to watch.

Canada, despite obvious geographical differences, is culturally very similar to Australia. I wonder if they have this same debate. I imagine the Quebecois are all for a republic, but Canada is still a constitutional monarchy like us. Maybe they looked next door and saw what happened to the Americans, and swore not to embrace such madness.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 13 September 2015 7:27:50 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
For conservatives the Queen is the embodiment of continuity, service and duty, standing above mundane politics whilst reminding us of our lower place in society.

For progressives the Queen is the anachronistic emblem of entitlement (both literal and figurative) whilst being the embodiment of continuity, service and duty.

For anarchists the Queen will be the first up against the wall.

But for me, I'll always remember how much I laughed at myself back in January 2004 when I failed to notice the 'h' and misread the news headline: "Queen clubs pheasant to death".

As Cleese and the Ronnies clarified, "I know my place."
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 13 September 2015 11:09:44 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
Well Foxy, it shouldn't be up to the Queen to approve or not.
I look forward to the day when we don't have someone else's Queen on our coins.

I still think it makes us seem like the far-flung penal colony we once were if we continue on with this ancient monarchy stuff.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one :)
At least it is a welcome distraction from the hatred and vitriolic anti-Muslim threads that fester on this forum at present!
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 13 September 2015 11:12:27 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
I was hoping that this would not be a discussion
about a Republic but more about celebrating Her
Majesty's extraordinarily long reign. I was hoping for
some anecdotes and personal experiences over
these years. I think her reign is a remarkable
achievement and it's not the length of service that
impresses. It's her manner of service.

Anyway, Thank You for all your responses thus far.

I actually met the Queen ages ago when I was dressed
in the Lithuanian National Costume and we were invited
to dance for Her Majesty. I was just a young kid - with
very long plaits - and I thought Her Majesty was simply
beautiful. I still think she is.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 September 2015 12:44:06 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
Dianna Spencer was the best Royal who had a conscience. The rest are elitists who think of us as slaves.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 13 September 2015 12:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My husband remembers the Queen's visit to
Melbourne a few decades ago. His scout troop
was invited to form a Guard of Honour in
the grounds of Government House in Melbourne
which he attended. To this day he still talks about
that eventful afternoon.

He also remembers a few years earlier - his school
going to the main road from the air-port into Melbourne
and watching and waving as the Queen and Prince Phillip
drove past in a limo. For him, those were days fondly
remembered.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 September 2015 6:25:57 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
I used to be so very much pro- a Republic,
and perhaps I still am. However, I also
believe that we already are a form of a
republic under the Crown. A "Crowned
Republic." As one website pointed out -
we enjoy all the desirable features of a
republican government and a constitutional
monarchy without any disadvantages of either
system.

It is re-assuring that the monarchy has the
ability to remove a government if it is
abusing its power and that way they're like an
extra safety net for our democracy.

Frankly, I do not want a politician as our head
of state.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 September 2015 7:09:28 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
A bunch of conservatives with their snouts in the trough were disrespectful to aboriginal people.Some nameless fool thought it funny to open their gob and say "I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owner of this land the Crown,"

This was said in the name of the Queen of England, at a Liberal Party Parliamentary dinner!
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 14 September 2015 7:12:58 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
I too admire our current Queen, for her dignity, her measured sense of proportion, her quiet diplomacy and her boundless subtlety. While all those around her, try hard to urge her to take a much more radical approach to this issue or that ? Many of which would amount to sheer dynamite, if she were to pursue such a rigorous and stringent course of action ?

She has amazing resilience and durability considering her advanced age. I only wish I had many of her positive attributes, as she sets a good example for us all to follow I reckon.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 14 September 2015 9:38:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear O Sung Wu,

We should congratulate Her Majesty and applaud
her life of unwavering service to millions of
people of many nations. As I stated earlier -
it isn't merely the Queen's length of service that
impresses. It's her manner of service. She is an
emblem of constancy and of dedication to duty.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 14 September 2015 11:22:14 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
Hi FOXY...

I couldn't agree with you more, she's indeed a marvellous lady in every respect. I first saw her in 1954 (I think, plus or minus?) at Concord Park when she, in company with the Duke, reviewed nearly 100,000 of us school kids all lined up proudly at the height of one of Sydney's hottest summer days ! She looked so cool and elegant in the back of an open Land Rover.

Sadly, today she'd probably have represented an excellent target for some crazy ratbag or other, if she were again to review school children in similar circumstances ? Interestingly, years later as a copper I had to search both her official vehicle, and both her and the Duke's private (but separate) bed chambers at Admiralty House, looking for IED's during one of her visits.

Gingerly touching her private cosmetics or 'face creams' I suppose you'd call them, carefully opening draws and wardrobes, where her personal chambermaid had carefully placed her apparel and accessories, I felt as if I was invading her privacy, notwithstanding the care I took.

My wife later on, wanted to know all about the Queen's 'stuff' I guess you'd call it. My most vivid memory of anything, was of a glass bowl of English (wrapped) Mints - and yes I was tempted to take one, but I could've done my job over it, for sure !

It must have been quite an amusing sight watching a dog (canine) and handler, first sweep the rooms, followed by me, with one of her personal chambermaids carefully re-arranging her possessions after I had examined them ?

Sorry FOXY, I'm 'rambling' on. That's the trouble when you're old, nobody wishes to listen to you too much ?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 1:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear O Sung Wu,

I could listen to you for ages.

You've lead such an interesting life and if you were
to write a book, I'd happily buy it.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 1:33:47 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
Thank you FOXY, you're are too kind by half. I guess I have lead an interesting life, but so have many others, even more so I'd imagine ! You could count yourself amongst that quota, with your fascinating work in library's across the great metropolis of Los Angles ! Thank you again for your kind words, I really appreciate them.
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 9:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear O Sung Wu,

I'd be interested in the stories that you could
tell about your experiences in working in Kings
Cross - they would probably capture an entire
era - and also your experience in Vietnam although
that may be too painful for you. I recently bought
a badge from a Vietnam veteran - and he was so
pleased that I did so. It was a very emotional
moment for us both.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:24:02 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
My old neighbor, a wonderful dear, Beryl her name, about 87, a kindly old stick, if ever there was one, wouldn't harm a fly. I think based on what makes a lovable queen these days Beryl would make a great Queen of Australia, Queen Beryl I. At 87 I think Beryl would have no probs picking up the haps of the job, hand waving, riding around in the back of a Rolls Canhardy etc, a piece of cake for Beryl. Since Tone's had to vacate Kirribilli House in a bit of a rush, and Mal really don't want it, he's got a bigger joint just down the road, a bit of a tidy up, a rename to Kirribilli Palace, and Beryl and Prince Jim, Jim comes with Beryl, they are a tag team, been that way for over 60 years, they could move right in. Unfortunately, Beryl and Jim don't own a corgi, but they do have a mange cat, who's name escapes me at the moment, the cat comes to. If its not too late maybe Tone could give the cat a knighthood, Sir Cat, I just remembered the cats name iis, Tody, Sir Tody, sounds good. At least they are all Australians. its a package deal!
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 9:52:17 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 Paul,

The Department of Social Services has an interesting
information sheet entitled "A Better Australia."
It's worth a read.

It reminds us that the customs and institutions which we
recognise as Australian today are largely British and
Irish in origin. They have their roots in a culture which was
until recently, relatively homogenous in composition.

Of course many of the institutions and customs evolved and
developed in response to the Australian environment. The
institutional structure transplanted to Australia was often
modified, sometimes dramatically to reflect our own
history and circumstances.

The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy was
transformed by a written constitution into a federal system of
government. Until the last generation these methods of doing
things derived from Britain served most Australians well. The
striking exception was the Aboriginal people.

However in the last four decades Australia has become a vastly
different place from the British Isles in which our institutions originated, just as Britain
is having to adapt to its changing
population, so our institutions are now
required to respond to the needs of a
culturally and linguistically diverse society.

It is in the interest of all Australians that the three tiers of
government - Commonwealth, State, and local to intervene where
necessary to manage our diversity in the interests of
cultural tolerance, social justice and economic efficiency and for
that we need to plan.

Overseas experience has shown the often tragic consequences that
occur when societies are unable or unwilling to integrate
newcomers, especially in situations in which some minority groups
find themselves restricted by barriers of prejudice or
culture from enjoying the same opportunities as the host
society.

That does not mean we should dismantle or repudiate our
institutions in order to start afresh. Instead we should make
our institutional heritage work better for us by enhancing their
capacity to respond flexibly to the needs of an
ethnically mixed population. We need a positive policy response.
Inaction can only exacerbate the problem. The new government
should now seek social cohesion - not social engineering.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 12:04:32 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
I have just learned that our former Prime
Minister did not comply with tradition and
instead of fronting up to the Governor-General
with his resignation as others have done before
him. He broke this time-honoured tradition and
simply faxed his resignation as Prime Minister
to the Governor-General. This from a man who we
supposed was a pro-monarchist and pro-traditional
behaviour. Yet he chose a most undignified and
"sore-loser," way to leave his office by not
"manning up," and doing the right thing and following
protocol - which all others did before him.

It does not speak well of him at all.
And says a great deal about his character.
He can dish it out - but cannot take it.
Sad really.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 6:37:29 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
Dear old 'Adler' Abbott, he won't be missed.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 6:59:28 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
Hi Foxy, as a firm believer in egalitarianism I cannot in good conscience support the concept of a hereditary monarchy, no matter how sweet and lovable the monarch might be. I don't know her personally, but I am sure Elizabeth Windsor is a lovely old biddy, and makes for a good granny, but like all of us, she must have her faults, her ancestors certainly did.
The democracy we enjoy today is not due to the (British) monarchy, but in spite of it, who as arch conservatives, and persons of privilege, resisted change at every turn. The British monarchy unlike their French, German and Russian relatives, were able to read the writing on the wall in time, and keep their heads, literally, and their crowns, except for Charles I who lost both. Some would say good luck to them, I would rather say, good riddance to them.

Just as a side line, I would like your opinion. Our good neighbors across the Tasman are at the moment debating the virtues of adopting a new flag for themselves. Seems John Key's has set aside $26m for the exercise. I have "debated" this with my partner "T" over a glass or three and with some other Kiwi's as well. For some the existing flag is an insult, with the United Tribes having established a flag of Aotearoa in 1835. Today at Waitangi the Maori fly three flags, the modern New Zealand flag, the British Flag and the original flag of 1835. Since the Maori never ceded sovereignty of their land by treaty to the British crown, only governance, the boat people who arrived and set up shop were all illegals, and their flags are also illegal as is their government in Wellington! So its a no brainier and John Kay should save the 26 million bucks.

p/s It was "T"'s ancestor Hone Heke who chopped down the British flagpole twice at Kororareka the British capital (modern day Russell in the Bay of Islands) in 1845.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/artwork/36354/hone-heke-chopping-down-a-british-flag-pole-1845
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 9:29:04 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
Dear Paul,

I understand your sentiments about the monarchy.
You're not alone. There are many people who
share your strong feelings.

As for a new flag for New Zealand?
The new flag should represent all the people
equally and if it takes a competition to come
up with a suitable design that's the price the
country has to pay for its identity.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:04:34 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
Gawd Blessah, she does a wonderful job!
Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Thursday, 17 September 2015 3:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HM has served her British kingdom well. OZ ejected her in 1973 as monarch of the UK and said she is Queen of Australia. As there was no coronation for that and no act of Westminster, there is no such Queen.
It's like having NSW laws signed by the Prime Minister of NSW after the state Plmt. declares the new position for the Oz PM.
The British Queen has corgis as well as the Australian realm and laws could be given assent by her corgis, with inked paws. No crowned monarch has legalised Aust law since 1973.
Maybe Charles III will get the correct crowned authority.
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 17 September 2015 10:16:34 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
FOXY...I think I'd be contravening the rules of the Forum to speak of my times at Darlinghurst. Or some of the memorable events in Vietnam ?

Several unsettling events, that I will share with you FOXY, that always struck me as being somewhat peculiar ? We were often tasked with sweeping through areas near the villages of Long Dien and Dat Do. The inhabitant's of which were known to give material support to the NVA and VC, and both villages were situated not that far from the notorious Long Hai hills. Some of those sweeps included ambush patrols, often at night.

Occasionally we were treated to a veritable, 'sound and light show', all of which were the compliments of the massive B52's undertaking heavy bombing runs over the Long Hai's. To describe it as breathtakingly beautiful, watching tons and tons of 1000lb bombs wrecking death and destruction on the hapless NVA and Vietcong. While most sought safety ensconced in the tunnel systems within the Long Hai's, many though simply couldn't, so consequently they perished.

To describe something, so destructive as heavy bombing, as being truly beautiful at night, feeling the enormous concussion of the earth immediately around you, observing the many brightly lit fireballs reaching far into the night sky, sounds incredible brutal, as well so insensitive and callous into the bargain ?
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 17 September 2015 10:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HM was Queen of RAR and napalm came down on women and kids from Mr Prasiden. The US Congress is closely modelled on Westminster forms.
With the internet all politicians and royals get buckets of feedback instantly. Charles gets it when he steps out of line.
So evidently HM reigned so long over us , happy and glorious, and saved, due to not doing anything noticeable.
In the end, everyone is just the next door person.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 7:47:47 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 Nick,

You seem a big confused as to the role of Her Majesty
in Australia.

Perhaps the following website may clarify things for you:

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

It explains what the Queens role is in this country.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 1:30:41 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
Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank you for the very moving snippets that you do
give us of your life experiences.

As I stated earlier - if you were to write a book,
I certainly buy it.

In any case you should write something down as a legacy
for others, especially those in your own family.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 1:33:31 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
Foxy
I was confused , must admit, but am now even more .
DEFENCE (PERSONNEL) REGULATIONS 2002 - SCHEDULE 2
Oath or affirmation for enlistment of member
(regulation 24)

Part 1 -- Form of oath

I, (insert full name of person) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, as a member of the

(insert Australian Navy , Australian Army , or Australian Air Force )
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 1:40:21 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
Dear Nick,

You might want to look up the Pledge of Loyalty Act
2006, which removed all pledges of allegiance to the
Queen, her heirs and successors and put in place -
a pledge to Australia and to the people of NSW. This
was an amendment and the Act was asserted to by the
Queen on 3 April 2006.

From what I gather, Australia is a sovereign and
independent state and no one in Britain can
affect any changes in our country, including the Queen
who's role is symbolic and she acts only on the advice
of Australia's PM. Kevin Rudd pledged to Australia and
the people of Australia when he was made Prime Minister.

The Queen took an oath to serve the people of the
Commonwealth - according to their rules and wishes.
She has maintained that throughout her reign.

The following link may again help you to understand
things as they currently stand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia

Look up the chapter on the Australian Defence Forces in
that site.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 2:38:15 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
erm..( cof cof ).

Foxy, the NSW parliament ministers don't carry artillery .
The head of brass is HM. The ships are hers. The RAR is ..well..royal.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 3:06:44 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
Dear Nick,

And your point is?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 3:21:15 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
cont'd ...

The Ministers don't have uniforms either and they
don't salute each other et cetera.
So what!

I tried to make it clear to you that Australia is
a Sovereign and Independent State - and the Queen's
role in it is symbolic - she does not act unless it
is on the advice of the Australian Ministers.

If the Loyalty Oath by our Defence forces bugs the
heck out of you - contact the Defence Minister and
make your feelings known - or better still contact
the new PM. I heard tell he's for a Republic,
I can't help you any further.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 3:26:02 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
Calm down dear Foxy,
You were correcting me about HM being head of RAR. That is still the case. NSW acts are not the Constitution.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 3:41:35 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
Dear Nick,

I am calm, but frustrated, because you still
don't get it. Still that's something over which
I have no control.

Let me again state for you -

Yes, the crown does have a place in the Australian
Defence Force - which as stated in the link given
earlier - consists of the Royal Australian Navy,
Australian Army, and Royal Australian Air-Force.

However, Section 68 of the Australian Constitution
says - The commander in Chief of the naval and
military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in
the Governor General as the Queen's representative.
In practice however, the Governor General does not
play any part in the Australian Defence Force's
command structure and the ADF is under the control
of the Minister for Defence and several subordinate
ministers.

The Minister advises the Governor General, who acts as
advised in the normal form of Executive Government.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 4:16:25 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
Yes yes Iknow.
very good.
You think I said something and argue against that.
Queen Victoria never told Australian troops to open fire. QE II never did, or George III. Political power is held by radio talk-back hosts or cartoonists. But legally, dear out-Foxed , there is a legal head of state who bangs down the big rubber stamp on Bills to make Acts. ( or asks Pete in Yarralumla to do it).
AND if you read my post I was comparing HM more favourably than US Presidents who napalmed woman and children for republicanism.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 4:38:16 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
Hi there FOXY...

Thank you for that. I don't think many folk would like to hear of what actually happened in South Vietnam. And if you were to share anything specific, most likely you'd either not believed, or if believed, vilified ? Some very funny episodes in the coppers though. Trouble is, it's not on Topic and clearly, a breach of the rules. Thanks again.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:07:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Nick,

I would love to agree with you - but
then we'd both be wrong.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm looking forward to one day reading your
book.

Before I leave this discussion - I'd like to
Thank every one for their contribution.
And look forward to our next discussion.
For me this one has now run its course.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:15:14 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
The Queen is not head of state.
not head...
what planet is this?
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:22:54 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
Dear Nick,

This is worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_head_of_state_dispute
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:40:16 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
oh aye, it says :"Section 61 of the Constitution states that "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen..""
The GG does stuff, and took the military vow to serve HM. All Oz military do vow that. Government starts in the pub, moves to TV, goes to parliament and gets stamped. But Prince William , not Tom the surfie, had the best seat at Anzac in Canberra this year. Why, I ask, is that?
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 7:10:23 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
Hi Foxy,

My point is, if we were truly an independent nation we would not be having this discussion about acts of parliament, the powers of, or lack of powers, that the Queen of England can, or cannot, exercise over our nation and its people. We are like the child who has left home and become "independent" but still brings his washing home for mum, and eats there five times a week.
Remember our past, respect our heritage, but move on and fully take our rightful place in the world, as a totally free and independent people, beholding to no other person, even if she is a lovely old duck, living in a big house in London.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 19 September 2015 7:05:17 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 Nick and Paul,

Interesting times ahead.

We now have a new Prime Minister who just may
steer us into a new direction as far as our
"Head of State" is concerned. We'll have to wait
and see what lies ahead for this country.
Thank You for your contributions to this discussion.
They are appreciated.

See you on another discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 1:41:09 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
As much as I'm a dedicated Royalist and have enormous respect for our Queen, I do have to agree with PAUL1405, that it's now time we become our own country, with our own identity, and with our own Head of State.

The only proviso being, that 'Head of State is chosen by the people, not by some group of morally corrupt politician !
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 19 September 2015 3:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi o sung wu,

There is the rub, how do you get that person? If the person has to stand for election even with only one other opponent then immediately they become a "politician" even if they have never ever been a member of a political party, they start fronting the media putting their case forward its only natural if they want the gig.
What I favor is a panel of eminent Australians possibly the chief justice of each state to put forward one name only by consensus to be approved by the Australian people at a general election with a tenure of 2 set parliamentary terms, 6 years. If in an emergency the head of state resigns or dies then the new person would hold office until the next general election was due and they could be approved by the people. What happens if they fail to gain the peoples approval, that is a tricky one, and a "special" election would be required, but I would think such an occurrence would be extremely rare if the panel did their job properly.

p/s As a pacifists I am happy with ex-army chief Peter Cosgrove and the job he is doing. It was a bit insulting of Abbott to resign his office by fax, don't you think, could have shown the GG a bit more respect and the office of PM as well.

p/p/s I know we love our sporting heros, but no ex cricketers or footy players please. Although Don Brahman at one time would have made an excellent head of state. Your thoughts.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 19 September 2015 4:06:36 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
I have just read a very interesting article by
Monica Dux in The Saturday Age, September 19,2015.

Dux explains - A big part of the problem is that
forward-minded people, who would be inclined to support a
republic, don't tend to worry about the symbolic and
ceremonial underpinnings of our society.
And the question of who should sign the laws
our government
passes is not something most people get excited about.

This is the reason according to Dux - that same-sex
marriage took so long to get traction in the broader community.
Not because the majority opposed it, but because most
forward-thinking people don't consider marriage to be
important.

In a world where de facto relationships are
commonplace, and are generally protected by law, the
institution of marriage is of largely symbolic significance.

Conservatives on the other hand, love symbols. They get all
giddy over honours and titles, and they fall over each
other to salute the flag.

And of course they love to get married, precisely because of
what it symbolises.

The biggest reason that many Australians
can't work up much enthusiasm for the republic is not
because we have a lingering love of the British monarchy,
(although some do) -
but simply because most - don't think it matters.

Unfortunately, it's the conservatives who are right
about symbols and ceremonies.

Symbols are important, as we all discovered when we recently
reached the tipping point on marriage equality. Dux says
that finally, the majority of Australians have woken up
to the fact that a discriminatory marriage regime is
in fact, a statement, an official declaration
that same-sex relationships are not as valued as other
relationships.

She tells us that symbols and ceremonies define our
identity, they impact on our values, and they send a signal,
particularly to our children, about what we consider fair and just.

She states that - I fear it's only when we, as a nation, finally
realise this, that we'll at last take that long overdue
republican bus ride. Perhaps with a new pro-republican PM
this may happen sooner than later.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 4:19:46 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
cont'd ...

As for my own personal opinion?

I tend to agree with Dux in that it will eventually happen -
in its own time. However, agitating for change at the moment
is unnecessary, irrelevant, and distracting. And I have to
admit that I am biased. I don't want a politician as
Head of State. To me, it would be worse than a monarch.

The monarchy has the ability to remove a government if it's
abusing its power and that way the monarchy is like an
extra safety net for our democracy.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 4:32:47 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
Paul1405, "Don Brahman at one time would have made an excellent head of state"

A mite headstrong, bull-headed maybe. Culturally diverse though, which would appeal to some. Recent arrivals mistake the hump and attempt to mount it.

What about one of our very own, a docile Murray Grey? Versatile and the choice of a discerning public.

Fox,

Your needle is stuck on gay marriage.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 19 September 2015 5:09:53 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
otb,

My needle is stuck on gay marriage?

How so?

How does quoting an article, giving an author's
opinion piece from The Saturday
Age, equate to me being stuck on "gay marriage?"

Perhaps you need to actually read a person's posts before
responding to it?
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 6:34:59 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
Fox,

Your two posts,
- Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 4:19:46 PM
and
- Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 4:32:47 PM
were all about gay marriage.

That must be why the article appealed to you.

Your needle is stuck in the gay marriage rut.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 19 September 2015 6:58:16 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
otb,

Please - go back and read my posts where you accuse me of
being stuck on "same-sex marriage ."- The
first post happens to be - the opinion piece written by
Monica Dux in The Saturday Age - which I cearly
acknowledge as her opinion piece (not mine).
The second post - is
on the monarchy - (not on same-sex marriage).

I suspect that your posts here are deliberately designed
to provoke an angry response.

I'm not interested in playing your game.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 September 2015 7:53:08 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
Hi PAUL1405...

That is a tough one Paul ? The process of selecting a suitable 'Head of State'. And how do we determine such an individual ? What is the criteria and suitability of such a person ?

I'm really not clever enough to enunciate the qualities of such a person, other than suggesting; any candidate must be totally free of any political affiliations, alliances or connections, either privately or publically. Your suggestion Paul of a panel of eminent Australians, would select some suitable candidates and carefully screen them, their character/qualifications/antecedents etc. Create a shortlist, and submit that list to the Australian public for a vote ! Initially it wouldn't be easy, though for the sake of the entire nation, ultimately we must prevail.
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 19 September 2015 10:33:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi o sung wo,

I tend to agree with Foxy's article I'm not overly concerned as to how a "head of state" is selected as long as we have our own dinki di, bonzer, stone the crows, true blue Aussie dingo. LOL

My suggestion was for a panel to select one candidate only, and in that way it doesn't become a political contests like the US.
We have not had much of a problem with the GG's we have had, with a couple of notable exceptions, so selecting a head should not be an insurmountable problem. Of course I'm dead against giving the head the power to dismiss the government, certainly while ever the elected government retains the confidence of the House of Reps.

Hi OTB,

Are you saying Foxy is like you with your anti Green paranoia on all topics, I don't think so! You take the cake for that one.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 20 September 2015 9:31:31 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
With 3D hologram printing and voice programming , the head of state can be a fuzzy cloud logic crunch of all Oz pc input.
Like Maccas, create your own to order.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 20 September 2015 10:09:24 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 Paul,

In the world through which I travel, I
look forward to new experiences.
A mind is stretched by new experiences -
will never shrink to its old dimensions.

There's a big difference between a groove
and a rut.

See you on another discussion.

Dear Nick,

I have a delightfully witty little booklet with
the title - "Political Pryorities: How to get on
top of Australian Politics," written a few years
ago by Dennis Pryor.

With his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek Dennis
Pryor exposes all the vanity and hypocrisy of our
leaders, bureaucrats, journalists and party hacks.
This is the voters' revenge on the people who spend
their taxes.

You may be interested in what Pryor has to say about
the Westminster System.

He tells us that the -

Westminster system - 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 décor,
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 Westminster system" is a slogan used
by Opposition parties in an attempt to trick their
opponents into foolish resignations.

See you on another discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 20 September 2015 11:48:17 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
yes and you'll see me here too.
The GG position exists because obviously she is needed. A cashier takes in all the cash for a business but does that make her the money earner for that company? However that is the customer contact point, the "face" of the enterprise. China owns Oz and the Poms own the contract but GG is the true voice of this branch office.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 20 September 2015 12:12:00 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
and hey, whose face do we want on coins ? Kevin 07, Tony the Knight, Julie the knitter or Chilla III?
Chilla and Camilla? Ned Kelly in Muslim helmet? Phar Lap ? George Washington...yes got it.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 20 September 2015 12:19:37 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
Hi (again) PAUL1405...

Em it is a tough one as I said ? I guess what I'm trying to say; however our 'Head of State' is chosen, as long as it's achieved without any political interference whatsoever, I'd be quite happy. Somehow, whatever happens in the future, and by what process it is determined to choose a Head of State, you can bet your bottom dollar some corrupt politician will get his 'controlling' mitts on the whole deal !
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 20 September 2015 1:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I tend to agree with Foxy's article I'm not overly concerned as to how a "head of state" is selected as long as we have our own dinki di, bonzer, stone the crows, true blue Aussie dingo.//

That's a bit racist, Paul.

//We have not had much of a problem with the GG's we have had, with a couple of notable exceptions, so selecting a head should not be an insurmountable problem. Of course I'm dead against giving the head the power to dismiss the government, certainly while ever the elected government retains the confidence of the House of Reps.//

I tend to agree: however we decide our head of state, they shouldn't wield any more power than Queen Elizabeth II does. Basically it should be somebody who just gets wheeled out for ceremonial purposes.

So in summation, what we're looking for is a powerless ceremonial figurehead, and the selection process for that figurehead isn't really important. It might as well just be a lottery, or a hereditary appointment. Sorry, remind me again what the problem with Queen Elizabeth II is? Oh, right, she's English...

Well, the solution would seem obvious then: an Australian constitutional monarchy with a royal family of our very own.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 20 September 2015 5:34:29 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
When the Poms changed to a new boy, he couldn't speak the language.(We live in horsatralia, so it's said, dunno where that is).

George I spoke German and French and a little English; he regularly visited Hanover to fulfil his duties there.

Family tensions (George imprisoned his wife in 1694) and political intrigue (opposition gathered round the Prince of Wales) led to differences and intense dislike between George and his son, George.

In 1719 and 1720, and during most of the King's absences in Hanover, power was delegated to a Regency Council and not to the Prince of Wales. Unfamiliar with the customs of the country and lacking fluent English, George was dependent on his ministers .
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 20 September 2015 5:47:35 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
Hi Toni, it was also said rather tongue in cheek, put simply an Australian citizen approved by the people will be fine with me. Just as I don't want the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, I do not want the Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah, or the King of Swaziland Mswati III, both are absolute monarchs, etc etc as our head of state. I also do not want a bunyip aristocracy set up with some sort of hereditary monarchy.
Toni, I appreciate your gee up. Have you considered Australia could easily accommodate a new royal family, and one existing monarchy is conveniently located on the continent with us, in fact it is the second largest nation on the continent. I am alluding to the Principality of Hutt River, the aging Prince Lenard could easily become King Lenard I of Australia, unfortunately Princess Shirley passed on in 2013 at the ripe old age of 84, so no consort. One advantage is Price Lenard has a ready made royal family available for us the Princes Wayne, Ian, Richard and Grahame. The hereditary angle is well taken care off with Crown Prince Ian set to take over from Price Lenard at the appropriate time.
Your thoughts
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 20 September 2015 7:29:27 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
The ABC I think did a doco on a Qld bloke whose family back in Henry VII era had a better title than some bastard (literally) who was approved as legitimate. So he should be Australian monarch of UK over Mrs Windsor. Pom rebels will be a problem but there's room here for a few convicts.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 20 September 2015 9:11:20 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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