Bodger

Will Camilla have to go into quarantine for 30 days ?

RichS

I think you've hit the nail on the head with regard to democracy. I'm not sure that having the next PM of the UK effectively decided by the readers of the Sun is a great advert for democracy.

Likewise in this country I don't actually feel half the people here should be trusted with the vote, on the grounds that they are clearly stupid.

Now of course I'll get flamed for that point of view, but please tell me how well equipped do you think the public are to decide on the merits of the philosophical, economic and strategic decision policies of the respective candidates for power.

In the US at least they've done the decent think and everybody accepts that the election result is mutually exclusive to the actual winner. (even though they still seem to have ended up with a buffoon in charge).

NedKelly

I think the point of democracy is that it not a question of whether the voting masses are intelligent, reasoned enough, etc. to vote on the issues. It's well known that the average Joe Public doesn't know or care unless he gets money in his pocket for beer and fags and Jane Public doesn't care unless hubby give her enough for housekeeping. It's the fact that everyone is involved in the decision process if they want to be. However wrong that might seem and however dumb or stupid the President/PM/Chancellor that gets voted in is.

bondipom

He may well become your head of state and there is SFA you can do about that bar vote in another referendum (unlikely under Howard). Remind me why the last referendum voted to keep an inbred foreigner as your head of state.

NedKelly

Who would you prefer as head of state?

bondipom

The big question. The best system I have seen is the Irish ceremonial head of state who is voted in. Another matter is how you chose the candidates. Preferably they should be out of the political mainstream.

The only politician I have respect for here is Bob Brown. He is honest and hard working. I don't believe in all his policies however he is one of the few polis in Canberra with integrity. The Australian public have contempt and very little respect for their corrupt rulers.

The self serving method of election was IMO the big failure of the last referundum. Politicians chosing one of their own as head of state put the swing voters off.

No system will be perfect.

RichS

but the Queen is and he will be. answer the question posed by BP please. Why did your country vote to have an inbred German as head of state?

btw - I do love someone with a classic sense of irony and your username displays that brilliantly.

JAJ

The Governor-General is effectively the head of state in Australia.

And the last time the Australian public were consulted, there was a fairly convincing vote in favour of that state of affairs as opposed to the alternative of President Hawke, Keating etc.

Jeremy

JAJ

Prince Charles is not a Head of State.

And even when Heads of States do visit by formal invitation, such formal invitation follows a lot of discussion among underlings. It doesn't come out of the blue.


Jeremy

JAJ

The Crown Princess of Denmark is no longer an Australian citizen.

She was required (under Danish law) to formally renounce her citizenship to become a Danish citizen on her marriage to the Crown Prince. She also had to renounce her British citizenship, which she inherited from her father.

Private visitors to Australia do not normally need to undergo a 'popularity test'.


Jeremy

bondipom

"Queen's representative" is the term I normally hear.

JAJ

The quote "The Governor-General is effectively the head of state in Australia." comes directly from John Howard during the 1999 referendum.

Reference is made here:
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews...011199_2BL.htm

Incidentally, since 1927, and unequivocally since 1973, a separate Crown of Australia exists which is distinct from that of any other realm of which the Queen may also be sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...tional_History

"A fundamental change in the constitutional structures of the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire, and not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia) did occur, however, in the late 1920s. Under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which implemented a decision of an earlier Commonwealth conference, the unified Crown that had heretofore been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a shared monarch. Before 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, etc., each of these states, in effect, as dominions, amounting to a subset of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, etc. The form of use in the royal title as issued by King George V [1] (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit...tyles.htm#1927) did not mention the dominions by name, except 'Ireland', which changed from being referred to as Great Britain and Ireland to Great Britain, Ireland, indicating that it was no longer part of the United Kingdom, but a separate state of which the monarch was now directly the head, rather than through linkage with Great Britain. Though unnamed, except through reference to the 'British Dominions beyond the Seas', the ground-breaking move shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch to one of multiple monarchies, all held by the one monarch.

Though this principle was implicit in the Act and in the King's new titles, and came out of a Commonwealth Conference, neither the British government nor the dominion governments seemed initially to grasp its significance. So while the Irish immediately put the principle into effect by assuming the right to select their own governor-general and to demand a direct right of audience with the King (excluding British ministers), other dominions were much slower to go down this path, and when they did so, they were faced with determined, though ultimately futile, attempts to block such evolution in London.

Whereas before 1927, it was correct in law to talk about the British monarch reigning in the dominions, after 1927, there was technically a 'King of Australia', etc., even if that title was never used formally, with the only link being that that monarch was British and resident outside the Commonwealth of Australia. Curiously, while the Irish asserted the title 'King of Ireland' by having King George V sign an international treaty on behalf of his Irish realm as early as 1931 (where he was formally advised by the Irish Minister for External Affairs who formally 'attended' His Majesty, with no British minister present), the formal title 'Queen of Australia' was only adopted through the Royal Style and Titles Act [2] (http://www.statusquo.org/royalstyle.html) enacted by the Parliament of Australia in 1973."

Jeremy

Siren & Brian

If a visitor came over to my place without drinks in hand they may as well bugger off. So Charlie bring ya Sherry

Nice Guy

This twonk is coming to NZ, tomorrow I think.

Personally I would not cross the road to fart in his face.

Just what is his purpose?

Come to that just what is the purpose of the royal family, buggered if I know and buggered if I care.

One final comment have you ever noticed that these sponges always do a trip abroad when the weather in POMland is crap?

As I have always said, put them all up against a wall.........

I thankyou

kiwichild

The popularity of Prince Frederick and Princess Mary stems from a couple of factors.
1. They are a handsome young couple who encapsulate the girl being swept off her feet by a dashing young prince.

2. She grew up in Australia, was a "commoner" who won the heart of a prince.

3. She is elegant, educated, intelligent, yet down to earth and radiates a sincere warmth and caring disposition.

Basically they are a breath of fresh air compared to the long history of Charles, Camilla, Diana etc.

However, I can't see why anyone needs to poke a stick at Charles for. If he has made blunders, then he is human. Afterall, how many of us haven't in life?

It must be difficult to live your life in a fishbowl, constantly on display for the entertainment of all and sundry. And I doubt anyone in the British press or paparazzi gives him much of a break.

And finally, I don't recall the British Royal Family visitng every other year for their holidays LOL. Believe it or not, I imagine they do actually lead busy lives.