... And they didn't do it by killing every last scion of the House of Stuart. They did it by changing the rules of succession to disenfrachise Catholics. It really is that simple; all Australia has to do is change its rules of succession.

//So yes for your plan to work ALL the royals have to die.//

Nope. That's yet another of your violent, seditious fantasies.

//No we don't get "whoever".//

I was using 'whoever' as a place-holder for their name.

//So If you don't want a KING, which you can't justify//

I do want a monarch (Queens are also fine), and I can justify it even if you don't agree with that justification. I just don't want the same monarch as Britain after Her Majesty passes on.

//they can be a Prime Minister//

We've already got one. So does Britain, incidentally. In constitutional monarchies, the Prime Minister is not the Head of State - and nor should they be. Is Mise is quite right that the monarch should not be chosen from the Parliament. That's a very, very bad idea.

//President//

No, Presidents are what you have in Republics. I'm in favour of a constitutional monarchy... you're not really comprehending any of this, are you?

//Dictator//

No. Just no. At your age, I really shouldn't have to explain to you why that's a crap idea.

//Your comments are those of left leaning commoner bias.//

Nope, I've already explained that I consider strange women lying in ponds distributing swords to be a much better system of government than anything proposed by Dennis and his elk, sorry, ilk:

A moose once bit my sister...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

That being said, I still think that the Witengamot sounds like a much better system for choosing monarchs than some farcical aquatic ceremony.

//You or I can't change that//

No, but the Parliament can.

//QEII IS OUR QUEEN!//

I haven't said she isn't... or that she shouldn't be. You're tilting at windmills.

//What the hell makes Australia so special she has to reside here?//

I haven't said she should. Take your bloody pills, mate.

Toni, 'that doesn't explain anything', well not to you anyway.
No point explaining as you are set in your beliefs.
Look if something has been established and practiced for centuries, it becomes the proto-col and no matter what vegetables like you or the reps hate it, tough, that is it.
You must think we're all as thick and determined as you.
You cannot have an 'elected' Monarch.
Do you even know the meaning of the word, Monarch?
So stop pushing the lie.
Toni, you keep leaving yourself open to ridicule and name calling, like moron.
How do you think Kings and queens acquired all those countries in the first place?
They CONQUERED them, that means they did it through, ;violent and seditious acts!
DUH.
Never mind your source, you must have stayed up late to find something that made you feel you got it right.
Go back and find how many convicts ended up here, then start multiplying from 'settlement' till today, leave out the latter day migrants, they obviously do not count.
As for suggesting that you can have an elected "Monarch".
No you really can't!
Let me set YOU straight, the Parliament can't piss without the royal consent.
'Let me just repeat that last bit for you, because I get that you are a bit slow on the uptake'; as I said before, the British parliament, cannot do squat without the Queens permission.
So the follow up to that is, only royal lineage can ascend to or take over the throne, so Toni, the example you gave seems as though they already have royal titles, it stands to reason they made the obvious choice.
Govt's don't create Kings, so I don't know where the heck you get your info from.
Here's a tip.
Stop trying to win points and believing your always right.
I already have.

TRUTH will alway have value, the insulting views expressed about me are water off a ducks back, but insulting opinion polls?
Up early, often the case bit unwell, goggled the subject Australia will it become a Republic.
Found far better polling than the quoted SBS one .
But why bother?
Read the whole thread, absorb it learn from it.
Yes bit of a smarty in retaliation to? you make up your mind.
The case against is poorly put poorly defended by? minds closed to open debate on the subject.
Lizy will never own my country, we will become a Republic, now get ready, LASH OUT tell me my view has no right to be seen here

ALTRAV has removed 2 kings from office.
"As for suggesting that you can have an elected "Monarch".No you really can't!"

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (literally "He Who Was Made Lord"), also known as the King, is the monarch of Malaysia. The office was established in 1957, when Malaysia gained independence from the United Kingdom. Malaysia is a monarchy with an elected monarch . The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is one of the few elected monarchs in the world.

Following the resignation of Pope Benedict, a papal conclave elected Francis . The King's absolute power is why Vatican City can't join the European Union because only democracies are allowed. Papal Basilica : The Latin word basilica derives from the Greek "royal walkway", originally the tribunal chamber of a king.

NMN, the Agongs (Kings) you speak of are in fact, the Sultans of each state.
The system, in Malaysia is a contrived one to accommodate the Sultans out of respect.
Sultans take turns at being King, on a rotation basis.
The Sultans retain their ruling status over THEIR state.
The states revenue goes into the treasury and the Sultans are supported by the country and not the state anymore.
Their title is purely symbolic.
The Sultans and their families still hold the respect of their people as they always had.
The difference with the Malay model is that the Sultans are royalty just like any other.
The title is hereditary and not by our form of election.
The Sultans are already the rulers of their respective states so their ascention to King is not by 'election', but more by 'selection' or rotation.
Again the main difference is that they are already royalty, but for convenience and respect, they figured out a way of allowing an even 'time-share' system which did not strip the royal families of their titles.
The Agongs are NOT ELECTED, and they are certainly NOT from the people or COMMON stock.
Unless things have changed since 92', I was friends with the Sultan of Selangor's family, mainly the second in line for the throne.
I lived in the shadows of the palace in section11 in Shah Alam.
As I said unless things have changed, that's the way I remeber it.
So in MY language, Agongs are NOT elected, and if they were it was not by the people or by the parliament.
This method would engender division and acrimony between states and so the rotation system was established.

A 5 person vote is an election and the man is removed by election.
Popes get a few more votes . 'Elected monarchy' is a standard description.
-
Going by the public service love of long titles, we need one for the new bloke / sheila. "Gay" would be in there, "facilitating co-ordinator" , Commonwealth territories , Indigenous ( Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) , right honourable excellency and on it goes.