I just read an article that the Queen may be
considering making Prince Charles her "Regent."
That is giving him the duties but not the title
of King as she will find it difficult to continue
without Prince Philip. So on her 95th Birthday
sh appparently is considering not abdicating -
but giving the bulk of her duties to Charles.
I wonder how he will feel about that? (not King
but Regent)?

And how will that work for the Commonwealth countries
like Australia?

Foxy, do not worry Charles is bound by the constitution, he is just a figurehead of a System that works well, not the power we would expect from a President. Compare the instability of America with that of England. Our instability comes from those that want a new Constitution with the powers of a President, this divides a nation politically

Hi Josephus,

I understand all that.

However, speaking as a wife, mother,
and grandmother - if I was in the Queen's position and
all of my life I had always been concerned about "doing
the right thing," I would abdicate and let my son who's
been a "king-in waiting" for so long - have his rightful
place and not just as "Regent."

That would be the "right"
thing to do. She's been the longest serving monarch -
and now turning 95 - and with the death of her husband -
let it go Your Majesty! Your son deserves better than
a "Regent's" position.

Am I wrong? No matter what people may think of the
man personally - Charles is the next in line to the
throne - and it's time he was given that inheritance.
He's earned it!

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I, personally, am not in favour of a hereditary head of state, nor of any form of nepotism, but if, by chance, a majority of Australians continues to be in favour of a hereditary head of state, I think we should, at least, specify in our federal constitution that such hereditary rights must be subject to a “Natural Born Citizen Clause” similar to that in the American Constitution (Article II, section 1) :

« No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States ».

Obviously, the wording of the American clause, which dates from 1789, should be slightly modified to update it and render it more precise and unambiguous for inclusion in our Australian federal constitution.

Nevertheless, if a majority of our compatriots prefers to continue to have a non-resident foreigner as our head of state, then so be it. But, in that case, I, personally, am inclined to consider that it would be more appropriate and in our best interests to have, say, a Kiwi, as our head of state rather than a Pom, as at present.

The Kiwis have always proven to be our staunchest, and most reliable “brothers in arms”. Of course, the Americans have been loyal and trustworthy allies too. But the Kiwis, in particular, understand our culture and share our core values better than anyone else on earth.

.

Hasbeen,

Perhaps our new Minister for Defence will be able to sort things out, if he is not blocked by our half-witted PM, who has only ever rubbished the ADF and refused to come to their defence until he was shamed into doing so. It amazes me that we still get young men willing to enlist to protect our shite society.

Far more important for the world than the really crap idea of Australia dumping the monarchy and huge piece of our history is the current talk of Germany following the UK out of the EU. The European Union is a real problem for the entire world, unlike Leftist hissy fits about the Crown.