THE CROWNED HEADS OF EUROPE
- Thread starter mrmom2
- Start date
Mog said
My guees is it woud have been relatives of these pompus asse's that sacked that library Mog :wink:
One thing proven beyond any doubt by the French revolution is the bluebloods have the same blood as we peasants.
mrmom2 said:
Not necessarily, mom; with all the lying, murder and illegitimate children involved the legitimate monarchs - if they ever were legitimate - are probably selling hotdogs outside the palaces today.
Notice that they're wearing exactly the same clothes as the people in the paintings behind them - people who've been dead for 150 years? What's that all about, then? Talk about living in the past.
Here's a passage written by an Australian monarchist describing how beneficial a Constitutional Monarchy is to Australia, and that it is preferable to having a Republican (not to mention that a Monarchy is cheaper). The same benefits also apply to Canada, so all you Republicans out there, read it.
Australia's Constitutional Monarchy
Its benefits and its relevance for the 21st Century and beyond
BY PHILIP BENWELL MBE, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA
In the years leading up to Federation, the Colonies which made up Australia enjoyed a great measure of independence in their Government, but it was not by any means free of rule from London.
The first initiative, however, towards independence emanated with the Australian Colonies Government Act of 1850 (UK Parliament) which invited the Colonies to put forward proposals for a House of Representatives or some other form of responsible Government.
Despite this initiative, it was not really until the 1880's that the concept of federation received serious support within the Australian Colonies.
Some may like to feel that this support emanated from a greater sense of national pride. After all in the latter years of the nineteenth century the native born inhabitants far outnumbered the immigrants. However in reality the real push towards federation was an economic one to establish a national market free of inter-colonial interests.
Whatever the reason for federation, one must not forget that Queen Victoria and the Parliament of the United Kingdom not only allowed but encouraged the Colonies of Australia to federate and to enjoy self government.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom was the only legal entity through which an Act could be enacted to create the Federation. There was no other format through which this could be accomplished.
Through all these proceedings, Britain was a willing partner. It was in no way a grasping Imperial power from which Australians had to fight for the democratic freedom that is now the right of every person in this country.
Over the years those few ties which remained to the British Government were removed freely and without dissent.
Today there are a great number of Australians who are indeed regretting the removal of the right to appeal to the Privy Council!
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, passed by the House of Commons in July 1900 and enacted formally on the 1st January 1901, was a document resulting from a number of deliberations, submissions and proposals all of which involved Australians. The proposal was put before the Australian People for their decision in the form of a series of referendums.
It can therefore be said that this Act was drafted by Australians for Australians and voted upon by the People of Australia. It is accordingly intrinsically an Australian document whatever others may infer. It obtained our independence from our former colonial masters and preserves it from those politicians who would be our future masters.
The draftsmen of the Constitution, rightly called the "Founding Fathers", were brilliant in their farsightedness. They created a form of Government which took the best from the Westminster System, from Canada, the United States and from Switzerland, two of which were monarchical and two stable republican. The result was a perfect blend of democratic ideals and built-in safeguards. As Sir Zelman Cowan mentioned "The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn."
These safeguards are the only protection the People of Australia have against the excesses of those in political power. No other method of government has ever been able to ensure the constitutional stability and continuity of the life of the nation. To remove these safeguards and particularly to remove the ultimate authority vested in the Sovereign to appoint and dismiss the Governor General, albeit now governed by strict convention, will leave the democracy of this country subject to possible violation.
Republicans have no alternative other than to put a politician - who by his very nature will be biased - in place of a Sovereign who has no political party to obey, only Her desire to see to the well-being of Her Peoples. Even though a President may be selected from outside the political spectrum! he or she will need to receive the support of the Parliaments and would therefore owe existence to those who would lobby on his or her behalf within the Parliaments. The Sovereign owes no allegiance to any particular person or organisation, only to the People. It was to prevent Parliament from replacing the Crown with one of their own that the Founding Fathers ensured that the position of the Sovereign was inviolate except upon change of the Constitution by referendum.
The twentieth Century has seen vast changes in the governance of the World. Many monarchies were toppled and were exchanged for republican forms of Government. Although absolute monarchies have no place in the democratic ideals of today, most were replaced by absolute dictatorships of the Orwellian kind which in many instances were far worse.
Since the French Revolution of 1789, some three fourths of the nations in the world now describe themselves as republics. However only a very few could be actually said to be democracies.
In fact, of the more than 180 countries being member nations of the United Nations, only 26 could be probably regarded as true democracies. Of these twenty are Constitutional Monarchies. Many are either in the midst of a befuddled and laborious road to democracy, or are governed by totally despotic and undemocratic regimes.
Those countries, however, which had progressed towards a constitutional monarchical form of Government - few though they were - symbolise the very essence of a modern democracy.
The only difference between the Constitutional Monarchy of Australia and that of such countries as Denmark, Holland, Sweden and Thailand is that we have as our Sovereign a person who is also Queen of Great Britain and independently that of fifteen other countries.
The question that the People of Australia must consider is whether having Queen Elizabeth as our Queen is so deleterious that they would want to place total trust in the hands of their politicians.
The comments that have been made by supposed Monarchists that the Chief Justice should assume the role of appointing or dismissing the Governor General, relegating the Crown to a vacuity will not only nullify the very essence of our Constitution but would seriously endanger the legal impartiality of the Chief Justice and his high Court.
Either we accept the far reaching and often comforting provisions of our Constitution as a Constitutional Monarchy or we change totally to a republic. We cannot hang onto the security of the Crown, whilst watering down or invalidating its relevance. It is not fair to do this to the Australian People and it is certainly not fair to The Queen.
Many express concern about the behaviour of the younger Royals. However this is but a momentary aberration and is but typical of behaviour of their generation. One must remember that The Queen's direct family have been on the Throne for over one thousand years, since Egbert of Wessex in 802!
The Australian Constitution has served this country quell. Many may claim - arid possibly rightly so - that it is not perfect. However in many instances, such as the centralisation of power to Canberra blame should not be placed on the Constitution but laid at the foot of our political representatives who have caused this to happen.
In New South Wales we have seen how the Constitution of the State has prevented the Premier from arbitrarily amending the Oath of Allegiance in the State and from downgrading the position of Governor and the relevance of Government House.
Constitutions are meant to be solid documents. Not company articles changed to suit every Board. The Constitution enshrines within itself the protection of the People's democracy. As such it has relevance to Australians just as much today as it had ninety-six years ago. It is in this regard particularly upsetting that, according to the survey made by the Civics Expert Group appointed by the Keating Government in 1994 only IX percent of the adult population of Australia had any knowledge of the content of their constitution!
As far as the future is concerned, who can possible tell what the twenty-first century may bring. However if you allow the Constitution to be changed just because you may be disappointed with the performance of The Queen 's children or because. due to a deliberate lack of civics education in Australia's educational process, not many young people arc aware of the relevance of the Crown in our Constitution. not only will the heritage passed on to us by our Founding Fathers be betrayed. but also more importantly, the future security of our children and their children.
The ultimate question for the future is: Can a republic guarantee the independence. sovereignty. national interests and last but not least, the individual and civil rights of the citizenry as a Constitutional Monarchy has done and can continue to do so'?
http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/1997/mar/art05.htm
Australia's Constitutional Monarchy
Its benefits and its relevance for the 21st Century and beyond
BY PHILIP BENWELL MBE, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA
In the years leading up to Federation, the Colonies which made up Australia enjoyed a great measure of independence in their Government, but it was not by any means free of rule from London.
The first initiative, however, towards independence emanated with the Australian Colonies Government Act of 1850 (UK Parliament) which invited the Colonies to put forward proposals for a House of Representatives or some other form of responsible Government.
Despite this initiative, it was not really until the 1880's that the concept of federation received serious support within the Australian Colonies.
Some may like to feel that this support emanated from a greater sense of national pride. After all in the latter years of the nineteenth century the native born inhabitants far outnumbered the immigrants. However in reality the real push towards federation was an economic one to establish a national market free of inter-colonial interests.
Whatever the reason for federation, one must not forget that Queen Victoria and the Parliament of the United Kingdom not only allowed but encouraged the Colonies of Australia to federate and to enjoy self government.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom was the only legal entity through which an Act could be enacted to create the Federation. There was no other format through which this could be accomplished.
Through all these proceedings, Britain was a willing partner. It was in no way a grasping Imperial power from which Australians had to fight for the democratic freedom that is now the right of every person in this country.
Over the years those few ties which remained to the British Government were removed freely and without dissent.
Today there are a great number of Australians who are indeed regretting the removal of the right to appeal to the Privy Council!
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, passed by the House of Commons in July 1900 and enacted formally on the 1st January 1901, was a document resulting from a number of deliberations, submissions and proposals all of which involved Australians. The proposal was put before the Australian People for their decision in the form of a series of referendums.
It can therefore be said that this Act was drafted by Australians for Australians and voted upon by the People of Australia. It is accordingly intrinsically an Australian document whatever others may infer. It obtained our independence from our former colonial masters and preserves it from those politicians who would be our future masters.
The draftsmen of the Constitution, rightly called the "Founding Fathers", were brilliant in their farsightedness. They created a form of Government which took the best from the Westminster System, from Canada, the United States and from Switzerland, two of which were monarchical and two stable republican. The result was a perfect blend of democratic ideals and built-in safeguards. As Sir Zelman Cowan mentioned "The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn."
These safeguards are the only protection the People of Australia have against the excesses of those in political power. No other method of government has ever been able to ensure the constitutional stability and continuity of the life of the nation. To remove these safeguards and particularly to remove the ultimate authority vested in the Sovereign to appoint and dismiss the Governor General, albeit now governed by strict convention, will leave the democracy of this country subject to possible violation.
Republicans have no alternative other than to put a politician - who by his very nature will be biased - in place of a Sovereign who has no political party to obey, only Her desire to see to the well-being of Her Peoples. Even though a President may be selected from outside the political spectrum! he or she will need to receive the support of the Parliaments and would therefore owe existence to those who would lobby on his or her behalf within the Parliaments. The Sovereign owes no allegiance to any particular person or organisation, only to the People. It was to prevent Parliament from replacing the Crown with one of their own that the Founding Fathers ensured that the position of the Sovereign was inviolate except upon change of the Constitution by referendum.
The twentieth Century has seen vast changes in the governance of the World. Many monarchies were toppled and were exchanged for republican forms of Government. Although absolute monarchies have no place in the democratic ideals of today, most were replaced by absolute dictatorships of the Orwellian kind which in many instances were far worse.
Since the French Revolution of 1789, some three fourths of the nations in the world now describe themselves as republics. However only a very few could be actually said to be democracies.
In fact, of the more than 180 countries being member nations of the United Nations, only 26 could be probably regarded as true democracies. Of these twenty are Constitutional Monarchies. Many are either in the midst of a befuddled and laborious road to democracy, or are governed by totally despotic and undemocratic regimes.
Those countries, however, which had progressed towards a constitutional monarchical form of Government - few though they were - symbolise the very essence of a modern democracy.
The only difference between the Constitutional Monarchy of Australia and that of such countries as Denmark, Holland, Sweden and Thailand is that we have as our Sovereign a person who is also Queen of Great Britain and independently that of fifteen other countries.
The question that the People of Australia must consider is whether having Queen Elizabeth as our Queen is so deleterious that they would want to place total trust in the hands of their politicians.
The comments that have been made by supposed Monarchists that the Chief Justice should assume the role of appointing or dismissing the Governor General, relegating the Crown to a vacuity will not only nullify the very essence of our Constitution but would seriously endanger the legal impartiality of the Chief Justice and his high Court.
Either we accept the far reaching and often comforting provisions of our Constitution as a Constitutional Monarchy or we change totally to a republic. We cannot hang onto the security of the Crown, whilst watering down or invalidating its relevance. It is not fair to do this to the Australian People and it is certainly not fair to The Queen.
Many express concern about the behaviour of the younger Royals. However this is but a momentary aberration and is but typical of behaviour of their generation. One must remember that The Queen's direct family have been on the Throne for over one thousand years, since Egbert of Wessex in 802!
The Australian Constitution has served this country quell. Many may claim - arid possibly rightly so - that it is not perfect. However in many instances, such as the centralisation of power to Canberra blame should not be placed on the Constitution but laid at the foot of our political representatives who have caused this to happen.
In New South Wales we have seen how the Constitution of the State has prevented the Premier from arbitrarily amending the Oath of Allegiance in the State and from downgrading the position of Governor and the relevance of Government House.
Constitutions are meant to be solid documents. Not company articles changed to suit every Board. The Constitution enshrines within itself the protection of the People's democracy. As such it has relevance to Australians just as much today as it had ninety-six years ago. It is in this regard particularly upsetting that, according to the survey made by the Civics Expert Group appointed by the Keating Government in 1994 only IX percent of the adult population of Australia had any knowledge of the content of their constitution!
As far as the future is concerned, who can possible tell what the twenty-first century may bring. However if you allow the Constitution to be changed just because you may be disappointed with the performance of The Queen 's children or because. due to a deliberate lack of civics education in Australia's educational process, not many young people arc aware of the relevance of the Crown in our Constitution. not only will the heritage passed on to us by our Founding Fathers be betrayed. but also more importantly, the future security of our children and their children.
The ultimate question for the future is: Can a republic guarantee the independence. sovereignty. national interests and last but not least, the individual and civil rights of the citizenry as a Constitutional Monarchy has done and can continue to do so'?
http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/1997/mar/art05.htm
"Since the French Revolution of 1789, some three fourths of the nations in the world now describe themselves as republics. However only a very few could be actually said to be democracies.
In fact, of the more than 180 countries being member nations of the United Nations, only 26 could be probably regarded as true democracies. Of these twenty are Constitutional Monarchies. Many are either in the midst of a befuddled and laborious road to democracy, or are governed by totally despotic and undemocratic regimes.
Those countries, however, which had progressed towards a constitutional monarchical form of Government - few though they were - symbolise the very essence of a modern democracy. "
In fact, of the more than 180 countries being member nations of the United Nations, only 26 could be probably regarded as true democracies. Of these twenty are Constitutional Monarchies. Many are either in the midst of a befuddled and laborious road to democracy, or are governed by totally despotic and undemocratic regimes.
Those countries, however, which had progressed towards a constitutional monarchical form of Government - few though they were - symbolise the very essence of a modern democracy. "
Republicans have no alternative other than to put a politician - who by his very nature will be biased - in place of a Sovereign who has no political party to obey, only Her desire to see to the well-being of Her Peoples. Even though a President may be selected from outside the political spectrum! he or she will need to receive the support of the Parliaments and would therefore owe existence to those who would lobby on his or her behalf within the Parliaments. The Sovereign owes no allegiance to any particular person or organisation, only to the People. It was to prevent Parliament from replacing the Crown with one of their own that the Founding Fathers ensured that the position of the Sovereign was inviolate except upon change of the Constitution by referendum.
----------------------------
Yeah, being a Republic is so much better!
----------------------------
Yeah, being a Republic is so much better!
Better than be snowed by a wealthy bunch of inbreeders BL Not to mention mechants of death :x You know the Carlyle Group 