[Mr.Hedgehog]

When I went to the premiering of an opera everyone had to stand and clap because the 'governor general of Canada' was there. O
What the shit, we have to stand and clap for someone who was appointed and is basically useless? Where does her authority come from, heredity?
Grrr.
Also she abandoned her >insert number< children, and husband when they were like under ten years old.
Bwah

EDIT:

Napoleon. . .he united france and the revolution inspired America.

I'm pretty sure you have it reversed...
The French revolution happened afterwards.

[Yeddi]

Yeah but there was a French Revolution before that too. The French love Revolting. I believe they're onto their 5th Republic when some of us aren't even on our 1st.

[Efrem Da King]

I am a citezen of New Zealand I decide if she is my queen or not I am a self governing individual and I say she is not and I dont want her to die I just dont like her.

I wouldnt bow for her or speak formally to her or anything I have no respect for ordinary people who are born into titles.

What about someone who drove an ambulance in london during the blitz?

[Thin Spirits]

Australians aren't like the americans, we just don't give a shit.

This sums Up Australian apathy. even to the point where we get sick of it and hate politicians.We watch some bastards try to keep another lot of bastards honest whilst a few decent policies trickle down inbetween.

As I said before, the British and their attached monarchy have very little relvence to a modern Australia.

[Ocker]

The only way a revolution could be sparked in Oz is if our beer supply was cut off, regardless of who did it. Parliament House would be raided within 5 minutes.

[tragicclown]

What i don't understand about the Queen, Is why she is called HRH Queen Elizabeth II, when Australia has never had a Queen Elizabeth I..

Hmm, I think she is HM Queen Elizabeth II in the UK and Canada though.

Personally I think the UK and the entire Commonwealth should abandon constitutional monarchy and declare themselves socialist people's republics...but, if you must have capitalism, I think it is actually better to have a queen as a head of state, particularly a queen who lives in anouther country.

In countries where the Queen is the head of state, the Queen is the personification of the country instead of the Prime Minister or a political leader with any real authority. This strikes me as being a lot healthier than the American system where the US president is treated as the personification of the country with the status of both a Queen and a Prime Minister (exept a Prime Minister who cannot be removed from office and who can rule independently of their legislative body).

In the United States the term "Mr. President" (or, in theory, "Madam President") is used to address the president, music is played when he enters a room and everyone is expected to rise, and he takes the additional title of "Commander in Cheif." He is treated with a great deal more deference then a Prime Minister. When Bush visited London, he took an entourage of 700 sevants and his private army the "Secret Service" (which is a paramilitary intellegence apparatus for the President alone unlike the CIA which is for the goverment), surely the Queen travels with less. Tony Blair if I understand correctly travels with something like 12 people. There is a real notion of "if your president calls on you, you answer the call" as if it where the same thing as "your nation," American presidents are seen or do their best to be seen as being "above politics" as opposed to a prime minister who is the leader of a political party first and a head of state second. The reality is of course that the President is a political office with more power than the rest of the goverment put together and the ability to undercut every other goverment official and he still is treated as if he is an apolitical monarch.

If the United States had the Queen as their head of state then people could rally around her after sept 11 instead of rallying around their "commander in cheif." In other words, the Commonwealth Queen is a figure head monarch, the American President on the other hand is an executive monarch with not far from absolute authority.

[Proctor]

Right. I've deleted at least half a dozen meaningless and/or insulting posts. I see it again and you all die.

[Proctor]

I warned you. So this thread is now dead. See here.

[Political Interest]

What did I do?.

Proctor's Edit: I've already explained this. It wasn't you so much, but you continued to unwittingly egg Efrem and friends on. Then, when I cleared up the mess, you apologised so much as to make a second problem. Which brought about far too many posts either mocking you or telling you it was alright. Yeddi should have known better.

[redcarpet]

The Australian republic looks likely, particualrly with Latham's position favouring it.

But with the Kiwis? I think they'll keep the monarchy. Atleast for 200 years

[Thin Spirits]

The Australian republic looks likely, particualrly with Latham's position favouring it.

Thats provided he gets elected first; I wouldn't put money on nhim winning the election. Not that he wont give it a good run, of course.

[Khenlein]

What i don't understand about the Queen, Is why she is called HRH Queen Elizabeth II, when Australia has never had a Queen Elizabeth I..

Hmm, I think she is HM Queen Elizabeth II in the UK and Canada though.

Personally I think the UK and the entire Commonwealth should abandon constitutional monarchy and declare themselves socialist people's republics...but, if you must have capitalism, I think it is actually better to have a queen as a head of state, particularly a queen who lives in anouther country. ......

.

Interesting historical note, during one of the formative congresses. The topic of how the President would be addressed was debated at length. The more popular ones being " His Majesty" or "His Highness". IIRC it was Washington himself that settled the issue with the simple but powerful "Mr. President".

While I agree that the office of Chief Executive of the Republic is far and a way more authoritative and revered than the post of Prime Minister. And the Office definately wields a great amount of actual and ceremonial power and influence. But in the context of the entire Republican structure the legislative Congress is (purposely) legally the most powerful body in the Nation. Though I concede that the President does in fact emobdy the living Nation. The fact is there is he can do domestically without the Congress, while the Congress can work almost independently of him. Even in Foreign affairs, the sole mandate of the Chief Executive, the Senate can exert its control.

[tragicclown]

I'm not sure if this topic is still dead or what but I'd like to contribute this on the American presidency (I mean, the concept of such a thing as a "presidency" like a "monarchy", is there such a thing as a "prime ministry" in common speech?):

Antifederalist No. 70

THE POWERS AND DANGEROUS POTENTIALS OF HIS ELECTED MAJESTY

".... In the first place the office of president of the United States appears to me to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous. To be the fountain of all honors in the United States-commander in chief of the army, navy, and militia; with the power of making treaties and of granting pardons; and to be vested with an authority to put a negative upon all laws, unless two thirds of both houses shall persist in enacting it, and put their names down upon calling the yeas and nays for that purpose-is in reality to be a king, as much a king as the king of Great Britain, and a king too of the worst kind: an elective king."


This doesn't even include the modern defacto power to make war (while an American president cannot declare war historically they have been permited to make it without congressional approval), or the contemporary power to imprison by decree (declaring individuals enemy combatant, even if American citizens, and beyond the courts).

The power to pardon without any restrictions alone grants the president virtually unlimited power. The President's supportors for instance, can theoratically break any law and recieve pardons, allowing the president defacto ability to act beyond the law. One of Bush's secret service agents could kill a Democratic candidate and recieve a presidential pardon and there would literally be no legal recourse against them.

[Khenlein]

This doesn't even include the modern defacto power to make war (while an American president cannot declare war historically they have been permited to make it without congressional approval), or the contemporary power to imprison by decree (declaring individuals enemy combatant, even if American citizens, and beyond the courts).

The power to pardon without any restrictions alone grants the president virtually unlimited power. The President's supportors for instance, can theoratically break any law and recieve pardons, allowing the president defacto ability to act beyond the law. One of Bush's secret service agents could kill a Democratic candidate and recieve a presidential pardon and there would literally be no legal recourse against them.

Theoritically, we could pass an amendmant, making the Constitution illegal. Theoritically, the Senate could pass a measure that declares all members of the Green Party to be pirates, and have them locked up.
This is a fun game,

Importantly though, the President can exercise extraordinary powers, but he is accountable for them. He's not free to do as he pleases, should his acts been percieved to be criminal or heinous, the Congress can at any time begin proceedings for Impeachment, and be stripped of his powers.

Of Course, Theoritically he could order the United States Air Force to destroy the Capitol during a session of congress. Making it all moot I suppose