tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post8387682795514604826..comments2023-12-20T19:39:29.865+00:00Comments on Munguin's Republic: Australian State ditches QueenMunguinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16475165830302054002noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-51112829235674062742009-12-20T16:38:00.406+00:002009-12-20T16:38:00.406+00:00Danny:
That is how it is. Although all other memb...Danny:<br /><br />That is how it is. Although all other members of the Royal Family are subject to the law, and Anne has actually been charged for exceeding the speed limit. I think that Charles is going to be called as a witness in some case in teh near future.<br /><br />But the Queen is the law and although not above it, cannot be charged as I understand the situation. The Crown v The... erm Crown.<br /><br />In short, she could just let her self off with a warning.<br /><br />Mind I doubt anyone would much care if she dispatched Phil. Most of the rest of us would have done it years agoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-30704740763687299352009-12-20T14:42:21.304+00:002009-12-20T14:42:21.304+00:00Excuse my ignorance, but bringing cases in the nam...Excuse my ignorance, but bringing cases in the name of the Queen seems to suggest that she IS the law, and by inference, ABOVE the law. This begs the question of what would happen in Britain if, for example, the Queen should go off her nut and dispatch Philip with a sharp kitchen implement. Not likely to happen I grant you, but it really does seem to matter that the monarch might actually and literally be above the law.Danny, 1st Earl of the Ozarksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-30356927700607130812009-12-17T18:01:57.258+00:002009-12-17T18:01:57.258+00:00Tris, I mean to say that she will be more out of t...Tris, I mean to say that she will be more out of touch with things in Oz than she is with things in Scotland or indeed in England.Munguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16475165830302054002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-22732142425531257772009-12-17T17:43:15.970+00:002009-12-17T17:43:15.970+00:00Tris: yes it clearly makes no sense for criminal c...Tris: yes it clearly makes no sense for criminal cases in the Australian state of Victoria to be brought in the Queen’s name, you is going to be even more out of touch with their reality than she is with that here at home. <br /><br />I agree that the law should be separate from the monarchy after all are they above it in a 21st Century nation like we profess to be?<br /><br />It is totally inappropriate for Prince William to be sticking his oar in on their national day after all what exactly does he actually know about Australia and what their national day is about. The same of course goes true for him in an English/Scottish perspective, just how many hats can he actually wear all at once?<br /><br />Don’t get me started on Prince Andrew. I am trying hard not to invoke the usually colourful colloquialisms that you all know I like to employ when talking about these people. I can feel comments about helicopters, playboys and golf flowing to the fore.<br /><br />Good luck in getting any royalists to accept any argument that you may put forward for getting rid of these people, the minute you burst one royalist bubble they move on to the next old chestnut and then the next and so on back to the beginning.Munguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16475165830302054002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-78188274177079867972009-12-17T17:31:56.859+00:002009-12-17T17:31:56.859+00:00Right enough S/R I’m suspecting that the writing i...Right enough S/R I’m suspecting that the writing is on the wall for the royals here and in OZ. I just do not see them (or indeed us) stomaching Prince Charles as King. I see that even the quoted Australian monarchist makes no mention of Charley ever being their King, there is the small obstacle of the succession of Charles III before we go on to having King William V. I think it is ridiculous that we have the Queen and her family here, never mind how utterly preposterous that places like Australia and Canada do as well.Munguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16475165830302054002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-2269875867274490152009-12-17T17:17:12.508+00:002009-12-17T17:17:12.508+00:00I've always thought that it was stupid to invo...I've always thought that it was stupid to involve the Queen in law. It is not her who brings a case; she's never heard of it, whether in England or Scotland or Australia. I think that Mr Hulls and the Victoria government are right.<br /><br />The Prince William speech on Australia day again illustrates the problems of the same family being "rulers" of multiple countries, sometimes in competition for money making or prestigious enterprises.<br /><br />Clearly, the same problem must occur when Prince Andrew represents the UK on matters of business. There must be times when he is obliged to root from Britain against Australia, Canada, Jamaica, or other countries of which his mum is Queen.<br /><br />The system is simply not fit for the 21st century. Even royalists must see that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092475090824666694.post-44503655228548171572009-12-17T16:23:50.759+00:002009-12-17T16:23:50.759+00:00Monarchy by proxy right enough Munguin. I can cop...Monarchy by proxy right enough Munguin. I can cope with the Queen but once she 'retires' then we really do need to become a republic.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.com