RoyalGossip 2011 Archive: The Commonwealth Relationship With

Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: June on September 24, 2011, 04:33:52 am
________________________________________
Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill? :think: It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum". Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like. So, that's not even up for debate. :blabla: The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.

The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.

I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).

The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

edited to remove the accusations another poster is a troll

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 24, 2011, 04:51:16 am
________________________________________
If you don't mind my saying June, the other countries sound tired of hte constant drama surrounding the RF; when the monarchy is dragged through the mud, it drags the Commonwealth through the mud as well. Australia doesn't benefit, the other countries haven't had as raised a profile, plus they aren't at all paid attention too. How many receptions are held at the Palace for the various countries? How many times are Commonwealth countries (other than Australia) are a high priority to keep around? The Commonwealth countries look to be just a feather in the cap of the monarchy, not countries they actually care about.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: June on September 24, 2011, 05:18:15 am
________________________________________
Oh, they care alright, KF.

Australia has special significance over other Commonwealth countries by reason that we only exist by virtue of British convicts. We derived from a penal colony.

This is not bias, it's just fact. Our flag still carries the British Union Jack in its corner. Having said that, the BRF is well aware of republican majority in Oz. The Queen has gone on record about this. This is no doubt why countries like Canada and NZ get more royal tours than us - and lengthier ones. Ours are informal (William, solo) or very brief so as to be insignificant (Charles, Anne and even HM).

The BRF cares about other countries because it's a part of the old British empire and rule - a status symbol. If any of the members become republics, it will shake up UK taxpayers and many will think: why not us? Why do we have to keep paying for these layabouts? What value do they add?

See, if Commonwealth countries ditch the monarchy, then the tourism excuse for keeping the BRF around will lack merit. So, what's left? Historical significance? Familiarity? People can still visit the publicly owned castles and palaces, so I don't think it will be enough long-term. But granted, it will still take a lot for Australia to become a republic. No Gvt has had the guts to call a referendum. It won't happen until HM dies anyway.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: meememe on September 24, 2011, 05:56:51 am
________________________________________
Quote from: June on September 24, 2011, 04:33:52 am
Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

I got my wording that it is an 'official visit' from the following website: www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3703&Itemid=8

which says - They will visit Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, from November 19 to November 26, their first official visit to Australia as a couple since 2005.

"We are very proud of our ties to Denmark,"the Prime Minister’s spokesman announced."Their visit is a sign of the strength of the friendship between our two nations.

"They will lead a business delegation focused on green energy, sustainable living and food technologies.

"This delegation will provide an opportunity to enhance trade and business ties between our two countries in this important area," he added.

As this website is the site of Australians for a Constititutional Monarchy - I would assume that they know the differenc between a private and an official visit.

As for the lack of press - have you seen the women's magazines this year - she is a regular on the covers -as is Kate - and they sell out quickly.




Quote
Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

Actually as the representative of the Head of State of a sovereign nation Mary and her husband has every right to make an official visit - just as the President of the US will be making an official visit this year as well - it is what Heads of State do - make official visits to other countries and if they can't do so they send representatives - so Denmark is sending their Crown Prince and his wife to make an official tour - knowing that Australians are more likely to respond to Mary than to her mother-in-law.
Quote
But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill? :think: It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

You have actually stated the reason in your question - she is the future Queen of Denmark - a country with which Australia in on good terms, a trading partner and one that we would like to continue having good relations with. As the wife of the heir to that throne alone she will be accorded the respect due to that position and that will be paid for by the Australian taxpayers. It is not unacceptable under out Constitution - no where in the constitution does it say that we aren't to have official visits paid for by us of Heads of State or their representatives - in fact no country would accept that as a rational argument - all countries receive official visits from Heads of State and their representatives and those visits are paid for by the country being visited.
Quote
It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.


Charles is the heir being King of Australia but even so he didn't draw anywhere near the crowds that Mary did. He wouldn't draw them now either but William will.
Quote
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum".
They are different words for a reason - one is to change the constitution and the other is to find out the views of the people. greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/rudd-should-move-a-republic-plebiscite-2010-greens The Greens (an pro-republican party if ever there was one) made this comment - note the use of the word 'plebiscite' not 'referendum' for the question 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?' The 2020 Summit held by the Rudd government recommended a plebiscite on this issue to be held in 2010 - it wasn't of course.

Here we even have the use of both words on the issue www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-02/rudd-under-pressure-to-hold-republic-plebiscite/254938

"Holding a plebiscite doesn't commit the Government to holding a referendum at any particular time. It is an important preparatory step.

This is where I get my information - the government, a dictionary, my lectures at university and the textbooks I use to teach Australian history to students -


Quote
Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like.

Which is why Rudd suggested a plebiscite in the first place - to simply find out the views of the people - he actually said in the 2007 campaign that he would hold such a plebiscite in his second term (which he didn't get) and then a series more plebiscites to find the model that would get the required support before putting that to a binding referendum.
Quote
The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.


I don't understand why you have brought this into your diatribe - unless you are trying to explain something rather badly.

At the last election Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax but we are about to get the most expensive in the world because she has to do what her masters, the Greens tell her to do.
Quote
The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.

Of course which is why the Malaysian solution was stopped in the High Court - because it meant denying the refugees Human Rights and we are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and we are also signatories to the agreements on the treatment of refugess, which Malaysia isn't and so the government can't overturn international agreements that have been signed by earlier governments and the High Court rightly overturned Gillard's Malaysian solution.
Quote
I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).


The people that I come into contact with think William and Kate are wonderful and will welcome a visit by them - but the Queen is ho-hum. My comment here was based on the people I meet, discuss this issue with etc - your experience is obviously different - I can respect that.
Quote
The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

Actually is is a huge part of the Australian culture to give everyone a 'fair go' - it is part of the vernacular of this great land and a concept on which we price ourselves - that everyone is given a 'fair go' regardless of background, race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.

I would *despise* to live in Australia if that aspect of our character was ever lost - and I pity any Australia who has already lost that element of being an Aussie (such as yourself)
Quote
edited as the quote has been removed

Pick your battles.

I am an Aussie (7th generation actually). I do have a clue with a Masters Degree in History from Macquarie University and teach Australian History, along with other history of course.

From what you have written I think you need to do some basic research and even some study about what you are talking about rather than tell people here rubbish and have them lap it up.

There are 20 million+ Aussies. Not all think as you do. I don't for one. I think you might be a bit miffed that there is another Aussie on here who is prepared to call some of what you say rubbish or who would like to try to put a different perspective on things - to show that we do have people who think about things differently to you.

I am a republican because I believe that Australia should have a Head of State who is able to represent this country and this country alone and one of the things that changed me from being a monarchist was William actively campaigning against Australia for the 2018 and 2011 World Cups in South Africa last year. After that World Cup of course England decided to campaign only for the 2018 cup and Australia for 2022 but until the SA World Cup William was clearly anti-Australian.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Yooper on September 24, 2011, 06:10:21 am
________________________________________
June? What do you need from me, an entire USA citizen, who has no biz interfering at all except to say that we *despise* this??!!!!!

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: June on September 24, 2011, 06:21:43 am
________________________________________
Quote from: meememe on September 24, 2011, 05:56:51 am
Quote from: June on September 24, 2011, 04:33:52 am
Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

I got my wording that it is an 'official visit' from the following website: www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3703&Itemid=8

which says - They will visit Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, from November 19 to November 26, their first official visit to Australia as a couple since 2005.

"We are very proud of our ties to Denmark,"the Prime Minister’s spokesman announced."Their visit is a sign of the strength of the friendship between our two nations.

"They will lead a business delegation focused on green energy, sustainable living and food technologies.

"This delegation will provide an opportunity to enhance trade and business ties between our two countries in this important area," he added.

As this website is the site of Australians for a Constititutional Monarchy - I would assume that they know the differenc between a private and an official visit.

As for the lack of press - have you seen the women's magazines this year - she is a regular on the covers -as is Kate - and they sell out quickly.




Quote
Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

Actually as the representative of the Head of State of a sovereign nation Mary and her husband has every right to make an official visit - just as the President of the US will be making an official visit this year as well - it is what Heads of State do - make official visits to other countries and if they can't do so they send representatives - so Denmark is sending their Crown Prince and his wife to make an official tour - knowing that Australians are more likely to respond to Mary than to her mother-in-law.
Quote
But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill? :think: It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

You have actually stated the reason in your question - she is the future Queen of Denmark - a country with which Australia in on good terms, a trading partner and one that we would like to continue having good relations with. As the wife of the heir to that throne alone she will be accorded the respect due to that position and that will be paid for by the Australian taxpayers. It is not unacceptable under out Constitution - no where in the constitution does it say that we aren't to have official visits paid for by us of Heads of State or their representatives - in fact no country would accept that as a rational argument - all countries receive official visits from Heads of State and their representatives and those visits are paid for by the country being visited.
Quote
It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.


Charles is the heir being King of Australia but even so he didn't draw anywhere near the crowds that Mary did. He wouldn't draw them now either but William will.
Quote
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum".
They are different words for a reason - one is to change the constitution and the other is to find out the views of the people. greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/rudd-should-move-a-republic-plebiscite-2010-greens The Greens (an pro-republican party if ever there was one) made this comment - note the use of the word 'plebiscite' not 'referendum' for the question 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?' The 2020 Summit held by the Rudd government recommended a plebiscite on this issue to be held in 2010 - it wasn't of course.

Here we even have the use of both words on the issue www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-02/rudd-under-pressure-to-hold-republic-plebiscite/254938

"Holding a plebiscite doesn't commit the Government to holding a referendum at any particular time. It is an important preparatory step.

This is where I get my information - the government, a dictionary, my lectures at university and the textbooks I use to teach Australian history to students -


Quote
Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like.

Which is why Rudd suggested a plebiscite in the first place - to simply find out the views of the people - he actually said in the 2007 campaign that he would hold such a plebiscite in his second term (which he didn't get) and then a series more plebiscites to find the model that would get the required support before putting that to a binding referendum.
Quote
The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.


I don't understand why you have brought this into your diatribe - unless you are trying to explain something rather badly.

At the last election Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax but we are about to get the most expensive in the world because she has to do what her masters, the Greens tell her to do.
Quote
The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.

Of course which is why the Malaysian solution was stopped in the High Court - because it meant denying the refugees Human Rights and we are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and we are also signatories to the agreements on the treatment of refugess, which Malaysia isn't and so the government can't overturn international agreements that have been signed by earlier governments and the High Court rightly overturned Gillard's Malaysian solution.
Quote
I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).


The people that I come into contact with think William and Kate are wonderful and will welcome a visit by them - but the Queen is ho-hum. My comment here was based on the people I meet, discuss this issue with etc - your experience is obviously different - I can respect that.
Quote
The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

Actually is is a huge part of the Australian culture to give everyone a 'fair go' - it is part of the vernacular of this great land and a concept on which we price ourselves - that everyone is given a 'fair go' regardless of background, race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.

I would *despise* to live in Australia if that aspect of our character was ever lost - and I pity any Australia who has already lost that element of being an Aussie (such as yourself)
Quote
edited as this part of the original post has been removed


Pick your battles.

I am an Aussie (7th generation actually). I do have a clue with a Masters Degree in History from Macquarie University and teach Australian History, along with other history of course.

From what you have written I think you need to do some basic research and even some study about what you are talking about rather than tell people here rubbish and have them lap it up.

There are 20 million+ Aussies. Not all think as you do. I don't for one. I think you might be a bit miffed that there is another Aussie on here who is prepared to call some of what you say rubbish or who would like to try to put a different perspective on things - to show that we do have people who think about things differently to you.

I am a republican because I believe that Australia should have a Head of State who is able to represent this country and this country alone and one of the things that changed me from being a monarchist was William actively campaigning against Australia for the 2018 and 2011 World Cups in South Africa last year. After that World Cup of course England decided to campaign only for the 2018 cup and Australia for 2022 but until the SA World Cup William was clearly anti-Australian.
lol :laugh: lols rofl :tehe:

Good show, but I don't get my information from Google. Believe me, I know from whereof I speak, and it isn't from Google, unlike you.

edited for accusing a poster of being a troll again

I'm not even going to bother responding, because that will just: a) waste my time; and b) feed you.

edited for personal attacks and calling a poster a troll again

Believe me, I welcome dissenting views, but only when they make sense.

Yooper: you are so kind, dear friend. :thankyou: :BFF:

________________________________________

Title: Re: The Commonwealth Day
Post by: Tatiana on March 15, 2012, 09:50:55 pm
________________________________________
www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sophie-countess-of-wessex-talks-to-camilla-duchess-of-news-photo/141187619


HM and PP look terrific.

Sophie looks as though she has had a bathroom sink thrown at her, and Camilla looks like the old turkey she is...

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: June on April 10, 2012, 05:38:48 pm
________________________________________
Hello HC :hi:

My comment re Denmark was meant to be factual, not emotional. I'm sorry that you took offence, but I cannot put Denmark on the world stage when it isn't. :flower:

With respect, Australian taxpayers would not have been footing the bill for Mary and Fred to visit our shores to promote Danish business in Oz. I think I know our politicians and the political landscape better than you, wouldn't you agree? :thumbsup: Our current government is republican by policy. The visit was a shock, given that fact.

But, as with most things, the devil is in the detail. Mary was here to promote a very unpopular enacted, though yet-to-be-implemented, carbon tax, after the blatant use of other celebrities didn't work. In fact, the reaction was hostile. The Danish business angle was a ruse, as our PM is a know LIAR. If you would like further information, I'm happy to oblige. :flower:

I would never speak on behalf of the Danish people. It's lovely that the Danes consider Mary 'hardworking, intelligent and altruistic'; after all, they pay for her upkeep. I'm pleased to know that she represents Australia well overseas; she usually looks very nice. :thumbsup:

But I can assure you, the number of people who actually care about CP Mary in Oz would be so small as to be considered insignificant. Australia has moved on from royalty. Of course, I cannot speak for everyone. But people with whom I engage - quite a large cross section - do not mention royalty to me. Ever. I would be the one to raise it first, which is rarely. The republican movement here is very, very strong. That sentiment includes opinion about the Danish royals, though they have no formal role.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 10, 2012, 07:06:38 pm
________________________________________
It's too bad that the RF doesn't send members of the RF to stay there long term, to represent the monarchy more than just on the occasional trip there. to be honest, the monarchy seems more interested in promoting the monarchy than than the British nation/people and Commonwealth countries.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Alexandrine on April 10, 2012, 07:24:28 pm
________________________________________
William should have gone to study to Australia, Canada... Maybe people's opinion wouldn't have changed but at least they look like they made some effort.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 12, 2012, 09:54:58 pm
________________________________________
I think that overseas study would have benefited William immensely and probalby let him escape his role a lot more than living in Britain.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: meememe on April 12, 2012, 11:57:50 pm
________________________________________
As each of the Queen's sons did spend time in Commonwealth nations studying (Charles in Australia, Andrew in Canada and Edward in NZ - although not as a student but as an assistant teacher) I was surprised that her grandsons didn't unelss it was felt that sending the older males hadn't been all that successful. There could as be the question about favouritism for one country over another.

Then again both had gap years in which they spent time living and working in other countries rather than going to school there - so maybe that was done in part as a different type of 'studying' in overseas countries.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: HC on April 22, 2012, 01:20:18 pm
________________________________________
June
That is unfortunate if Australia thinks that CP Mary was in Australia to promote a very unpopular carbon tax.

CP Mary went to Australia because the ministry of trade wanted her and CP Frederik to sell our green technologies to Australia.

The trademinister and CP Frederik went to Vietnam afterwards to open doors for 50 danish business.

The government knows CP Frederik and Mary makes a huge difference to our exportvisits in other countries.

But as I can understand from what you write Australian business is an excemption to that rule.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Alexandrine on June 11, 2012, 10:50:40 pm
________________________________________
www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/republic-debate-should-not-forgotten/story-fn6ck620-1226391567257

Republic debate should not forgotten

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Alexandrine on July 12, 2012, 11:52:05 am
________________________________________
Queen Elizabeth II should be the final Head of the Commonwealth
Quote
In terms of its ceremonial role, it is arguable that the
headship is not only unnecessary in the 21st century
but — again — that it is positively harmful. If the United
Nations can make do without a de facto ceremonial head,
why can’t the Commonwealth? Indeed, the existence of
the headship may have served to stifle the development
of the post of Commonwealth Secretary-General. Were
the headship to disappear (and with it, we would hope,
the redundant post of CiO), the Secretary-General would
naturally — and rightly — become not just the voice, but
the face of the association. The discontinuation of the
headship could provide an unparalleled opportunity for
the association and its supporters to sweep aside public
ignorance and confusion and build support for a modern
dynamic Commonwealth.

A further argument against allowing the headship to
pass to Charles is that this would be to fly in the face
of recent constitutional developments. Although there
is great fondness for the Queen personally, there is far
less support for the institution of the monarchy itself.
Republicanism has become the default position across
the Commonwealth, and the death of the Queen is likely
to reawaken this issue in some of the remaining realms.
The prime minister of Australia has signalled that her
country might seek to become a republic at the end of
the current reign, while Prime Minister Portia-Simpson
Miller of Jamaica has expressed her intention to make
Jamaica a republic even sooner: upon the country’s
50th anniversary of independence in August 2012.
The young people of the Commonwealth’s member
states have a thirst for more and better democracy. The
continued use of a hereditary monarch to symbolise the
Commonwealth association does not sit well with this
democratic aspiration.

Quote
This is a problem which, almost uniquely for the
Commonwealth, has a clear and obvious solution. As
David Cameron is beginning to realise, changing the rules
of succession to the Crown across the Commonwealth
realms is a fearsomely complex task, involving the
revision of ancient laws, coordinating legislation with
the other relevant legislatures and negotiating arcane
constitutional conventions. Resolving the issue of the
headship could, by contrast, be a remarkably simple
process. It would merely require a statement from the
Palace to the effect that at the end of the Queen’s reign,
the royal family would continue to play an active role in
supporting and promoting the Commonwealth, but that
it would no longer be appropriate for one of its members
to assume the role of Head. Indeed it is our strong view,
that the interests of the Commonwealth would be best
served if the post of Head of the Commonwealth was
abolished at the end of Her Majesty’s reign

www.commonwealthadvisorybureau.org/fileadmin/CPSU/documents/Publications/Queen_Elizabeth_II_should_be_the_final_head_of_the_Commonwealth.pdf

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Magnolia on July 19, 2012, 01:00:32 am
________________________________________
Quote
Queen Elizabeth II should be the final Head of the Commonwealth
Indeed it is our strong view,
that the interests of the Commonwealth would be best
served if the post of Head of the Commonwealth was
abolished at the end of Her Majesty’s reign
I think the RF knows something is coming you can tell will all the fake smiles and parades being thrown they are walking on egg shells.The future of the monarchy after HM will be just awul_IMO. Why even have a wasteful, money sucking, disgrace still there.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 19, 2012, 12:35:43 pm
________________________________________
Quote
Why even have a wasteful, money sucking, disgrace still there.

Just think, jsut before the engagement a lot of us (myself included) thought it was a great institution. I must say that I am glad for this engagement exposing these people for who they are and their real worth. Just so you know, it brought that much to our attention.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: leogirl on July 19, 2012, 06:28:50 pm
________________________________________
I think that the problem is that HM is weak/tired/old and doesn't feel like she can tell anyone they can't marry the person of their choice, even if said person has a bad reputation that can hurt the monarchy.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 20, 2012, 12:52:52 am
________________________________________
Quote
the problem is that HM is weak/tired/old


I think that is the real problem; she let a lot of he family members whine and get away with shirking standards and expectations. She should at least let the courtiers work tehir magic, but she treats them as either servants or enemies, never friends and allies.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: anobserver on July 20, 2012, 01:14:04 am
________________________________________
I wonder what HM thinks of the Duchess' new diamond necklace :spy:

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Yooper on July 20, 2012, 05:21:51 am
________________________________________
^I wonder what the good people of the UK think of the Duchess' display, personally, as well.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Albany on July 20, 2012, 07:06:28 am
________________________________________
Quote from: leogirl on July 19, 2012, 06:28:50 pm
I think that the problem is that HM is weak/tired/old and doesn't feel like she can tell anyone they can't marry the person of their choice, even if said person has a bad reputation that can hurt the monarchy.

Or, perhaps, deep down she knows the whole thing is going to hell once she's gone, so why bother? :Kate:

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: leogirl on July 20, 2012, 08:46:16 am
________________________________________
Kate's new necklace? Apparently you can get a fake one just like it for much, much less. And William has been known to give her fake jewelry, so I wouldn't be surprised if hers isn't "real" unless of course someone gave it to her or let her borrow it. PW seems like such a tightwad I can't see him spending that kind of dough on a necklace.

________________________________________
Title: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: True Brit on September 10, 2012, 10:34:03 pm
________________________________________
Draft legislation is now ready to move Jamaica towards a republic and dropping the Queen as head of state. Harry's visit there was intended to pursuade them to stay with the UK and until the vote is taken we don't know if that has had any impact.

I suspect Usain Bolt and the other Jamaican Olympians may well have fired the independence feeling away from the old colonialism which the Crown represents.

However, Justice Secretary (now ex- JS) Ken Clarke visited last month and says there is no reason we cannot continue our close relationships. Elswhere I read there has been hearings at the Supreme Court in London as Jamaica moves to remove its legal system from the auspices of the UK as part of this push towards a republic. Sentence appeals are heard in London.

jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120816/lead/lead6.html

New Zealand appears to be watching their developments closely as they also look towards independence

www.republic.org.nz/blog/jamaica-republic-legislation-september

And Antigua and Barbuda are likely to declare themselves a republic in the wake of Jamaica. It could be the Queen's DJ tour of the Commonwealth is the last for reasons other than her increasing age.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: rogue on September 10, 2012, 10:37:41 pm
________________________________________
Quote
Harry's visit there was intended to pursuade them to stay with the UK and until the vote is taken we don't know if that has had any impact.

So The Queen really thought that a visit from Harry would keep them in the CW :- They must really think people are stupid.The BRF has never done anything for the CW countries besides showing the world ''we still own them'' tours.I think it will have a domino effect especially when NZ decides to join them.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: True Brit on September 10, 2012, 10:47:31 pm
________________________________________
:thumbsup: I think so too Rogue - particularly re the domino effect. Suspect a lot of people are worried the sky will fall in but once one country such as Jamaica shows it will all be perfectly OK they will fall one after another.

________________________________________

Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: True Brit on September 11, 2012, 10:25:37 am
________________________________________
I agree with you re Scotland MMM. I am highly sceptical that they will break away. Alex Salmond (Scots Nats) is a very wily politician and he knows he may not get full indpendence and is (supposedly) after Devo Max which is far more money from Parliament and the ability to raise taxes North of the Border.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: Magnolia on September 13, 2012, 01:42:48 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Kuei Fei on September 11, 2012, 06:37:32 am
jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120816/lead/lead6.html

Now I remember; I wonder if HM is having nervous fits over this.

First Scotland is about to officially break away and leave England and Northern Ireland together (until Northern Ireland breaks completely away) and she has to work on plotting against that, but I wonder, just how will she handle it if Jamaica does break fully away and the New Zealand follows suit?

Then after New Zealand, Australia might end up making a complete break and then the rest of the nations will go down. I think it would mentally cripple HM and end up with her in shreds. Bad enough that she has had to know that after she's gone it will happen, but if it were to happen during her reign, what then?
[/quote]
Maybe that might happen after HM is gone when they think this institution/dynasty serves no purpose for them anymore.After she's gone even some in the media have said years ago the gloves will be off with all the scandals they will be publishing they won't now out of um."respect" for her.

________________________________________
Title: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: Spice on September 20, 2012, 12:06:35 am
________________________________________
Our Republican group is running a poll asking whether the C&C November tour costs should be made public:

www.republic.org.nz/poll/should-costs-novembers-royal-tour-be-made-public

Obviously I voted Yes to that.

I would like to see one of NZ, Australia or Canada become a republic, which will help the movement in the UK. I think Australia is more likely to be the first, but since I'm a NZer I'm following what happens in my country.

Most NZers are terribly fond of Lazy and Waity. They are drunk/stupified on the royal wedding drug - someone said to me yesterday that the "newlyweds" should be left alone to enjoy their private vacation. She had no idea they had said they couldn't be at the Paralympics because of work.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: meememe on September 20, 2012, 02:20:32 am
________________________________________
Making the costs public is a furphy though as royals and other VIPs will still continue to visit and continue to cost a fortune for those tours. It is part of the normal diplomatic relationships between nation.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: Spice on September 20, 2012, 02:26:05 am
________________________________________
^It's not part of normal diplomatic relations between nations, because he is here representing our Head of State, and he will be the next. So, he is part of our own government, despite being unelected.

I don't think NZers mind covering the costs of "normal" diplomatic visits from people who were elected to represent their country.

And I don't think people will mind if the costs are reasonable - but I suspect that wherever PC is involved, they won't be reasonable. The point is we don't know whether they are because the government is keeping it secret. Which is wrong.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: Snokitty on September 20, 2012, 02:33:13 am
________________________________________
^ I agree and it is wrong for them to put an added burden to the people of NZ because all these royal tours do is showcase the royal family. They are nothing more than PR stunts. If they can show some tangible proof that there is a benefit to the people of NZ that would be one thing but all that ever comes out of these tours seems to benefit the royals themselves.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: True Brit on September 20, 2012, 09:42:36 am
________________________________________
I see the vote is over 90% think they should be made public.

This is my main gripe with the royals - there is a distinct lack of transparency over the way they are financed. This is deliberate as if the public really knew the costs there would be a distinct cooling towards them.

Even if it is viewed as normal diplomatic relations those are public costs which should be made clearly available to the public who pay their taxes to support such activity. Most realistic people know that there is a cost to these things - republic or monarchy. It's the misleading information and hiding behind their position that is completely undemocratic.

The exemption from FOI over here is a distinctly retrograde step and it should be stopped.

The Govt and the Palace are constantly telling the UK that theycosts a mere 69pence per head per person. It is simply not true as so many other costs are not included - securty for one. An independent analysis claims it to be in excs o £7 per head.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: fyeah_harryshotabs on September 20, 2012, 09:52:50 am
________________________________________
I'll do whatever I can to help my cousins across the ditch become a republic. Just give me the word and I'll dress up as Kate...I've got my Tranny makeup and Horse hair mane at the ready..I'll flash my vjayjay and hoohoo at the airport, ski slopes and near the geyser if need be. Just draw me a road map of where the Hobbit houses are and I'm there, fanny out and flying to the wind. I'll even get "Willys wild ride" tattooed to my vajayjay if need be....anything for the cause :flirt:

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: True Brit on September 20, 2012, 10:05:11 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Snokitty on September 20, 2012, 02:33:13 am
^ I agree and it is wrong for them to put an added burden to the people of NZ because all these royal tours do is showcase the royal family. They are nothing more than PR stunts. If they can show some tangible proof that there is a benefit to the people of NZ that would be one thing but all that ever comes out of these tours seems to benefit the royals themselves.

You've hit the nail on the head Snokitty. This is nothing to do with promoting the UK or helping the Commonwealth - it's to promote the Windsor plc brand. They have to shore up this Commonwealth link as the role as Head of the Comonwealth is not hereditary and when the Queen goes the role may go (accordig to a document I have from a Commonwealth group).

Charles is not popular and there are other candidates within the other nations (I can support all this but too long for here). However, the main mood appears to be NOT to have a Head of the Comonwealth at all after HM. It seems there is a reluctance to debate it publicly out of respect for HM but it needs to be debated.

Just think if - post HM - there is no Head of Commonwealth most of the RF's overseas travel will go. It will lead to cuts at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office too which is why they keep asking them to visit these places as the diplomats are watching their own backs too.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: Snokitty on September 20, 2012, 01:40:30 pm
________________________________________
Quote
The Govt and the Palace are constantly telling the UK that theycosts a mere 69pence per head per person. It is simply not true as so many other costs are not included - securty for one. An independent analysis claims it to be in excs o £7 per head.

If this 69 pence per head is so true as the Palace keeps telling everyone then everyone should be able to send them 69pence and they can pay for their own security and everything else out of that. It should be divided amongst tax payers only in my opinion since they are truly the only ones paying.

Take the monies from the Duchies and give it back to the people where the money should be going anyway. Then they won't have to make such drastic cuts in things like the NHS etc.

Let them live off of their 69pence per person for real.

True Brit I always enjoy your posts on the royal family finance etc. because they are intelligent, informed and well thought out. kisss

________________________________________
Title: Re: Help NZ become a Republic
Post by: Magnolia on September 22, 2012, 02:13:38 am
________________________________________
Like the title they should be, I mean the RF is a laughing stock now.They are there for the tabs entertainment value no real honor or just something to look up to anymore_IMO.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: jaggy on October 20, 2012, 08:19:38 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: meememe on September 11, 2012, 09:48:06 am
When she became Queen she was Queen of 54 different nations. She is now Queen of 16.

So she has already had 38 nations become republics in her reign - about 1 every 2 years - hardly a new situation for her to be in.

Most of the third world nations that had her as Queen have already moved to being a republic so it isn't a surprise that the remaining ones are moving that way. The harder ones will be the more European based ones such as Canada and Australia given their constitutions and the processes involved in each realm.

I am not even sold that Scotland will become a republic when they take the vote. It seems that the Scots have way too much to lose - e.g. the English already subsidise the Scots economy quite extensively so it isn't really in the best interests of the Scots to break away from the English - although the English would be better off without the Scots.

Hey meememe,

could you explain me what you mean by that? To me as a continental European it always has looked that Australia is similar to NZ so I thought when NZ is becoming a republic the Aussi will do that right away. And even Canada isn't a country I would call European based - to me it's rather a little brother of the US without death penalties and more social securance :tehe:.

So I can't wait for somebody explaining the Anglo-Saxon countries to me :hi:

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 21, 2012, 08:38:05 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Magnolia on September 13, 2012, 01:42:48 am
Quote from: Kuei Fei on September 11, 2012, 06:37:32 am
jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120816/lead/lead6.html

Now I remember; I wonder if HM is having nervous fits over this.

First Scotland is about to officially break away and leave England and Northern Ireland together (until Northern Ireland breaks completely away) and she has to work on plotting against that, but I wonder, just how will she handle it if Jamaica does break fully away and the New Zealand follows suit?

Then after New Zealand, Australia might end up making a complete break and then the rest of the nations will go down. I think it would mentally cripple HM and end up with her in shreds. Bad enough that she has had to know that after she's gone it will happen, but if it were to happen during her reign, what then?
Quote
Maybe that might happen after HM is gone when they think this institution/dynasty serves no purpose for them anymore.After she's gone even some in the media have said years ago the gloves will be off with all the scandals they will be publishing they won't now out of um."respect" for her.

to me it sounds like these countries are going to break away sooner than HM being gone; Scotland will keep HM, but if Jamiaca refuses to end up sticking around through HM's reign then HM will be forced to watch that break away and then I am sure that she won't handle it well. Besides, she will still know that while she's alive it's being held by a thread, but in the end, she will know that after she's gone, it will all collapse.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: meememe on October 21, 2012, 09:13:15 am
________________________________________
Quote from: jaggy on October 20, 2012, 08:19:38 pm
Quote from: meememe on September 11, 2012, 09:48:06 am
When she became Queen she was Queen of 54 different nations. She is now Queen of 16.

So she has already had 38 nations become republics in her reign - about 1 every 2 years - hardly a new situation for her to be in.

Most of the third world nations that had her as Queen have already moved to being a republic so it isn't a surprise that the remaining ones are moving that way. The harder ones will be the more European based ones such as Canada and Australia given their constitutions and the processes involved in each realm.

I am not even sold that Scotland will become a republic when they take the vote. It seems that the Scots have way too much to lose - e.g. the English already subsidise the Scots economy quite extensively so it isn't really in the best interests of the Scots to break away from the English - although the English would be better off without the Scots.

Hey meememe,

could you explain me what you mean by that? To me as a continental European it always has looked that Australia is similar to NZ so I thought when NZ is becoming a republic the Aussi will do that right away. And even Canada isn't a country I would call European based - to me it's rather a little brother of the US without death penalties and more social securance :tehe:.

So I can't wait for somebody explaining the Anglo-Saxon countries to me :hi:

The majority of the populations of Australia, NZ and Canada are of European descent

________________________________________
Title: Re: Jamaica moves towards a republic
Post by: meememe on October 21, 2012, 09:21:40 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Kuei Fei on October 21, 2012, 08:38:05 am
Quote from: Magnolia on September 13, 2012, 01:42:48 am
Quote from: Kuei Fei on September 11, 2012, 06:37:32 am
jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120816/lead/lead6.html

Now I remember; I wonder if HM is having nervous fits over this.

First Scotland is about to officially break away and leave England and Northern Ireland together (until Northern Ireland breaks completely away) and she has to work on plotting against that, but I wonder, just how will she handle it if Jamaica does break fully away and the New Zealand follows suit?

Then after New Zealand, Australia might end up making a complete break and then the rest of the nations will go down. I think it would mentally cripple HM and end up with her in shreds. Bad enough that she has had to know that after she's gone it will happen, but if it were to happen during her reign, what then?
Quote
Maybe that might happen after HM is gone when they think this institution/dynasty serves no purpose for them anymore.After she's gone even some in the media have said years ago the gloves will be off with all the scandals they will be publishing they won't now out of um."respect" for her.

to me it sounds like these countries are going to break away sooner than HM being gone; Scotland will keep HM, but if Jamiaca refuses to end up sticking around through HM's reign then HM will be forced to watch that break away and then I am sure that she won't handle it well. Besides, she will still know that while she's alive it's being held by a thread, but in the end, she will know that after she's gone, it will all collapse.


I doubt if it will worry her at all considering that during her reign more than half the countries that had her as Head of State at her accession have since ditched her e.g. the various African nations which were ruled by Britain in 1952 refused to have her as their Head of State when they became independent of Britain. In addition another 14 or so countries that did have her as Queen of xxx have voted to kick her out since her accession. She began her reign as the Queen of an Empire which had 7 independent realms and about 40+ other colonies but she is now Queen of only 16 and will probably see a few more go before she dies. To her it won't be anything new as she has seen it all before with countries like South Africa, Fiji, Trinidad and Tobago etc etc.

To me what is more surprising is that countries like Jamaica haven't already removed her as their Head of State.

________________________________________

Title: Re: Canadians want the monarchy fixing...or removed.
Post by: Snokitty on August 29, 2013, 12:38:04 pm
________________________________________
The commonwealth is about trade and not about the royals.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Canadians want the monarchy fixing...or removed.
Post by: empirestate on October 06, 2013, 12:03:34 am
________________________________________
I've always been of the opinion that nothing will happen till after Elizabeth dies out of deference to someone so senior. She grew up in a very different time and I think people are willing to go with it with her but once she's gone it'll be done. Neither Charles nor William (Much as the media want to pretend) has the power and respect to stop it. I think Canada will be gone and so will Australia and by then you wonder how much Britain will care. I honestly mean no disrespect to the other commonwealth nations but once those two are gone you leave a very big hole. I thinks it's why the George's first visit will be Oz, William and Kate trying to shore up support by harking back to Diana making it William's first stop.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Canadians want the monarchy fixing...or removed.
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 06, 2013, 12:41:00 am
________________________________________
I think it's best that the monarchy be removed; they don't want to help themselves and don't know how to and I don't think it's right that the aristocracy do a thankless job of carrying them generation after generation and that the public pay for their life and end up with a brief wave and smile and be treated as a burden.

________________________________________
Title: Commonwealth Day
Post by: Snokitty on March 10, 2014, 10:09:59 pm
________________________________________
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2577592/Pretty-pink-Queen-embraces-spring-Camilla-Sophie-look-like-book-ends-Commonwealth-Day-service.html
Quote
Spring was finally in the air in Britain today and the Queen aptly reflected the change of season in her choice of outfit for the annual Observance of Commonwealth Day service.

Her Majesty was pretty in pink as she arrived at Westminster Abbey this afternoon with the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Queen smiled and waved to the crowds before meeting religious dignitaries, choir boys and school children who handed her a bunch of flowers.

________________________________________
Title: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Fly on the wall on March 16, 2014, 05:31:47 pm
________________________________________
Canning Colonialism: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag


New Zealand's political leaders confirmed this week that they will give voters the opportunity to scrap their national flag and come up with a new design.

The current flag features the United Kingdom's Union Jack in the top left corner, and ditching it would be a symbolic moment in the Pacific nation's historical relationship with the former British Empire.


Unlike the United States, which severed London's rule by winning the Revolutionary War, New Zealand is still part of an international community of former British colonies known as the Commonwealth.

Like Canada it still counts Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and she appears on coins and the New Zealand $20 note.

www.nbcnews.com/#/news/world/canning-colonialism-new-zealand-vote-scrapping-its-flag-n52781

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: MelissaRose on March 16, 2014, 06:40:45 pm
________________________________________
Well this doesn't look good for the Lazy Duo's tour. Is this a first step to NZ becoming a Republic I wonder?

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: terrajoule on March 16, 2014, 07:37:32 pm
________________________________________
Quote
"New Zealand's flag represents a country that no longer exists."

That's... interesting.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Alexandrine on March 16, 2014, 08:02:41 pm
________________________________________
Until the Queen dies we won't see a real change.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Kuei Fei on March 16, 2014, 09:10:42 pm
________________________________________
Just changing the flag will be a huge slap in the face to HM, even if they don't' become a republic while she lives. Yet, this just ups the stakes for the New Zealand visit and makes things a lot more delicate. If WK mess this up (as they already have without even being there) then this means that NZ will begin procedures to establish a republic, right while HM continues to reign. She will see right in front of her face the breakaway of another Commonwealth nation.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: india on March 17, 2014, 01:27:28 am
________________________________________
Bring it on.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: cate1949 on March 17, 2014, 02:00:45 am
________________________________________
NZ is a very very liberal politically correct type place - or rather - such people control the place - they only have helicopters in their air force for example. It is to my mind then inevitable that they become a true republic - but I do think that will wait for HM's death. The flag change has been under discussion for a long time - and since their flag is so much like AUS flag - I wonder if a NZ flag change would then prompt an AUS change? But it does show how absurd this visit by W and K is - the RF needed to pay a lot more attention to these countries than some silly wave by done by these two -to o little too late by the wrong people

I still say - want to save AUS? Send Harry down to do an officer military exchange

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Kuei Fei on March 17, 2014, 05:28:31 am
________________________________________
Truth be told, I believe that HM should be glad she's getting her karma now instead of in the afterlife. I wonder how many hours a day HM stares moodily at the newspapers, watching everything that used to be so great and effortless coming apart at the seams and she can't do anything about it. Kate is a kind of end result of Camilla driving Diana out and replacing Diana and soon she'll be watching this farce of a tour come along and end in disaster.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: cate1949 on March 17, 2014, 05:55:27 am
________________________________________
^ yeah - the legacy of what happened between Charles-Diana-Camilla has yet to fully play itself out. But I think ultimately the monarchy is doomed - just a matter of how - when.
The young royals do not have anywhere near the reputation for integrity that HM has (whether it is justified or not I am not arguing) and with each new episode they undermine what reputation they do have. PC - Will - Harry - they will finish it off.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: gingerboy24 on March 17, 2014, 04:05:33 pm
________________________________________
^ Yes, and making an excellenet, first class job of it so far. They are the dream of the Republicans, the greatest gift the could have and I am sure they are grasping it all with open hands, and why not.

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Dasher on March 18, 2014, 10:49:19 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: cate1949 on March 17, 2014, 05:55:27 am
^ . But I think ultimately the monarchy is doomed - just a matter of how - when.

Agree on that one! It's a downward spiral for them and we are drifting toward republicanism. :thumbsup:

________________________________________
Title: Re: New Zealand to Vote On Scrapping Its Flag
Post by: Adeline on March 22, 2014, 03:53:53 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: Alexandrine on March 16, 2014, 08:02:41 pm
Until the Queen dies we won't see a real change.

Yep. But good for New Zealand. It's ridiculous in the year 2014 to have a head of state thousands of miles away, that probably doesn't really care about you and you only see once every few years.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Fly on the wall on March 24, 2015, 12:48:23 am
________________________________________
Is Barbados about to ditch the Queen? Prime minister says Caribbean island is ready to ‘complete the process of decolonisation’


Barbados could be set to replace the Queen as head of state after the Caribbean island's prime minister set out his plans for it to become a republic.

Freundel Stuart told a branch meeting of his party, the Democratic Labour Party (DLP), last night that the shift would happen in the near future.

George Pilgrim, general secretary of the party, also confirmed the development and said the removal of the Queen as head of state was expected to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the island's independence next year.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007882/Is-Barbados-ditch-Queen-Prime-minister-says-Caribbean-island-ready-complete-process-decolonisation.html


________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Fly on the wall on March 24, 2015, 06:37:38 pm
________________________________________
Gordon Rayner‏@gordonrayner
Prime Minister of Barbados says he wants to replace the Queen as head of state. Expect a royal visit to Barbados imminently!



YUP YUP :tehe: . who will they send William and Kate or Harry :sigh:


Barbados is not the only Caribbean island ready to do that.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Jane23 on March 25, 2015, 10:25:18 am
________________________________________
^ ^ OK ... isn't something they all say to look cool but ends up being an awkward moment when they actually meet Liz? :tehe: At least that is what it looks to me ...

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Fly on the wall on March 25, 2015, 09:24:28 pm
________________________________________
Victoria Murphy @queenvicmirror

If Barbados becomes a republic will it reignite the debate in the other 14 realms? Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica to name three
The Jamaican Prime Minister talked of the country becoming a republic in 2012 but it has yet to happen. Think Barbados might beat them to it
The last country to drop the Queen as head of state and become e republic within the Commonwealth was Mauritius in 1992
@britishmonarchy says that the head of state in Barbados is a "matter for the government and people of Barbados". The standard response
Will Prince Harry be sent to Barbados or will Kate's maternity leave be interrupted? Everything to play for in the Caribbean #republic



PM says Barbados moving towards Republic.
www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/PM-says-Barbados-moving-towards-Republic

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Sheridan_is_appalled on March 25, 2015, 10:23:41 pm
________________________________________
I hope they do become a republic before Chucky & Son of Chucky (Harry gets a pass) take the throne.

________________________________________
Title: Re: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy
Post by: Kuei Fei on March 26, 2015, 01::52 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Fly on the wall on March 25, 2015, 09:24:28 pm
Victoria Murphy @queenvicmirror

If Barbados becomes a republic will it reignite the debate in the other 14 realms? Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica to name three
The Jamaican Prime Minister talked of the country becoming a republic in 2012 but it has yet to happen. Think Barbados might beat them to it
The last country to drop the Queen as head of state and become e republic within the Commonwealth was Mauritius in 1992
@britishmonarchy says that the head of state in Barbados is a "matter for the government and people of Barbados". The standard response
Will Prince Harry be sent to Barbados or will Kate's maternity leave be interrupted? Everything to play for in the Caribbean #republic

PM says Barbados moving towards Republic.
www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/PM-says-Barbados-moving-towards-Republic

It's not like the royals spend any time in these countries; frankly the royals are only interested in Mustique and other jet set places, not the Barbados or Jamaica, which surprises me. I mean, fabulous everything in each country and they pretty much pass it by treating it with diffidence.

________________________________________