Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: To Our British Friends
Why do you still have a monarchy?
The British have given the world geniuses of wisdom and eloquence, courage and fortitude. What other nation can claim a Disraeli, a Shakespeare, a Churchill? What other nation can claim to have held the last line of defense when Nazidom imperiled civilized humanity?
The British have contributed a proud and shining chapter to the history of civilization. At least, the common man of them has...
The history of British monarchy is writ red with tales of fratricide, infanticide and regicide. It is pimpled with men and women twisted in body and spirit, half-wits and degenerates. Seventy years ago one of the tribe gave up the crown on the eve of a great war to chase the skirt of a divorced American woman... and you didn't call it treason. Adultery is seemingly as frequent as the Queen's opening speech to parliament.
And now the world gets to shake their head at the "rape tape" imbroglio and ask the question; "Why do you still have a royal family?"
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Let's look at it this way...
I was born in Hong Kong, which at the time was a British commonwealth, so we had currency bearing the queen's portraits and "God Save the Queen" was heard every now and then. British people who resided in Hong Kong at the time did not seem to be too distracted by the fact that they were, in fact, part of a monarchy.
I'm sketchy on the details, but most of the political power rests in Parliament, a representative government akin to Congress, elected democratically. The royal family is sort of a "just-for-show" thing now. I think they actually contribute a lot to world peace and charity, if what Princess Diana did during her lifetime was any indication...
Plus, I think it's nice for a people to have a bit of tradition, kind of like how Major League Baseball is still split into two leagues even though as far as I care they play the same ball (except for the DH, which I despise). I think as long as the royal family continues to represent Britain with elegance and righteousness and all that goody goody stuff, let them keep the monarchy :)
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
I think as long as the royal family continues to represent Britain with elegance and righteousness and all that goody goody stuff, let them keep the monarchy :)
End Quote
But they don't! I think the Queen has done her best to follow the example of Victoria and the regal stateliness she brought to the throne, but her children are complete reprobates, completely undermining what she's spent sixty years trying to bring back to the monarchy. And her husband is just as bad. He is, as we say here in Australia, a goose. The thing is, abolishing the monarchy could only occur if the monarchy decided to abolish itself. Charles has talked about it and Prince William doesn't appear to want the throne, which is probably why the Queen won't step aside, along with the fact that she doesn't have to. I'm not familiar with the British constitution but the Queen (or King) represents the head of state. To get rid of them would mean a change to the constitution and that would take a referendum followed by an act of Parliament followed by approval by the Queen. And if I'm not mistaken, the Queen is also the head of the church as well? That makes things even more complicated.
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
You raise an interesting point, Mr. Goreripper. I didn't realize it was this complicated. But if Charles or William doesn't want the throne, wouldn't Harry want it? Who is next in line anyway?
I still think it's good for the Brits to keep their traditions, but in the end it's up to them and I'm not sure it would be fair for outsiders to judge since it doesn't seem to have any ill effects on the country...none that I perceive, anyway.
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
But they don't! I think the Queen has done her best to follow the example of Victoria and the regal stateliness she brought to the throne, but her children are complete reprobates, completely undermining what she's spent sixty years trying to bring back to the monarchy. And her husband is just as bad. He is, as we say here in Australia, a goose. The thing is, abolishing the monarchy could only occur if the monarchy decided to abolish itself. Charles has talked about it and Prince William doesn't appear to want the throne, which is probably why the Queen won't step aside, along with the fact that she doesn't have to. I'm not familiar with the British constitution but the Queen (or King) represents the head of state. To get rid of them would mean a change to the constitution and that would take a referendum followed by an act of Parliament followed by approval by the Queen. And if I'm not mistaken, the Queen is also the head of the church as well? That makes things even more complicated.
End Quote
Goreripper has hit all the nails right on the head with his observations here ;)
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
You raise an interesting point, Mr. Goreripper. I didn't realize it was this complicated. But if Charles or William doesn't want the throne, wouldn't Harry want it? Who is next in line anyway?
End Quote
Harry is next in line after William, and after that it gets even more complicated, because if Harry didn't ascend to the throne either, it would be Prince Edward (his uncle) who's next in line. Charles would be a very reluctant king, just like he is about everything.
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
... aren't Canada and Australia involved as well. The Queen is the Head Of State, right?
End Quote
You're right. In the Australian Constitution, the Queen is the nominal head of state, represented by the Governor-General. The GG's role is to rubber-stamp legislation on behalf of the Crown. Australia had a referendum a little while back to remove the Crown from the Commonwealth of Australia and have it replaced by a President, but it was defeated. I won't go into the politics of that unless you want me to. >:(
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
I won't go into the politics of that unless you want me to. >:(
End Quote
Well...I do like to be enlightened, considering in my country we don't have to represent the queen...
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
Well...I do like to be enlightened, considering in my country we don't have to represent the queen...
End Quote
In the late 90s there was a push from sections of the community for Australia to remove the monarchy and become a republic in time for the Centenary of Federation in 2001. This divided everyone into two camps: the Royalists, who wanted to keep the British head of state, and the Republicans, who didn't. Although he's a staunch Royalist, our Prime Minister, in one of his rare moments of actually listening to the people, decided to hold a referendum to find out what we should do. But the question was loaded.
Unfortunately, the Republicans were further divided in as much as they couldn't decide what sort of President they wanted: a popularly elected one, or one installed by the government who would be selected and voted on by the Parliament. The consensus appeared to favour the latter, so when it came time for the vote, instead of just asking "Do you want Australia to become a Republic" and then voting on how we should do it later, the question was something like "Do you want to replace the Crown with a President elected by a majority vote in Parliament?" Obviously the Royalists voted against it, and the Republicans who didn't want that President voted in that way voted against it as well! So Australia still isn't a Republic. I've voted in two referendums now (I think), and both of them were either confusing or geared towards being defeated. Only one has ever succeeded as far as I am aware, and that was the one that allowed the vote for Aboriginal people. Ironically in the vote for the first Prime Minister in 1900, Aboriginals could vote (and did) in some States because the Constitution that forbade them from doing so for sixty years hadn't yet come into force!
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
So, the British Constitution doesn't contain a poison pill?
I'm learning, and I want to make sure I've got it right. Is it correct to say that the monarchy cannot be abolished without the active participation of the queen?
That makes sense. Most governments don't contain the seeds of their own destruction.
If I was a British subject, though, I would be vocally opposed to the monarchy. Where does public opinion figure in all this?
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Quoting:
So, the British Constitution doesn't contain a poison pill?
I'm learning, and I want to make sure I've got it right. Is it correct to say that the monarchy cannot be abolished without the active participation of the queen?
That makes sense. Most governments don't contain the seeds of their own destruction.
If I was a British subject, though, I would be vocally opposed to the monarchy. Where does public opinion figure in all this?
End Quote
I'll have a go at this, but am more than happy for Gore or anyone to correct me, as politics etc is hardly my strong suit....
Yep ! My understanding is the Queen would effectively have to do herself in.....
As Gore said, the Queen's representative in Aus is the Governor-General. It is reasonably rare for the G-G to get involved, unless there is a 'Constitutional Crisis' such as we alledgedly had in 1975, when the incumbent Prime Minister got thrown out, in a move that still reverberates throughout Aus culture to this day.
Personally being part of the Commonwealth doesn't bother me one way or the other, and I certainly don't feel like a subject (I don't know whether I am or not.....technically ::)) I just think of myself as an Australian.
I suppose it is a lot closer to home (no pun intended) for Britons, I would be interested to know what they would say on the subject...
FB :)
Subject: Re: To Our British Friends
Again, it comes down to the constitution. Any change to the way a nation is governed requires change to the constitution. If Britain was to become a Republic, the role of the monarchy would need to be written out of their Constitution. There isn't a "poison pill" and the Queen doesn't make policy, the Parliament does. She basically just rubber-stamps everything.
As for the Commonwealth, Australia would remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations whether it became a republic or not.