Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We did have a push toward becoming a Republic here in Australia, but none of the existing politicians wanted any would be president being elected by the people and having a strong moral mandate.
So we got the choice only of having existing politicians choosing a president in parliament, which of course would have seen some old tired political hack being chosen.
it was never gong to happen as the republicans couldn't come up with the correct model, the Sydney and Melbourne chardonnay set were at the forefront of republicanism at that time noticibly their origins were of Scottish and Irish backgrounds. Another time perhaps.
We did have a push toward becoming a Republic here in Australia, but none of the existing politicians wanted any would be president being elected by the people and having a strong moral mandate.
So we got the choice only of having existing politicians choosing a president in parliament, which of course would have seen some old tired political hack being chosen.
What's the point of having a president if he or she isn't directly elected by the people? That doesn't make sense and is almost as undemocratic as having a monarch.
In Australia's case, I see why you'd have extra incentive to ditch the monarchy - incentive to cut ties with the UK?
The law has been changed, and now the oldest female child has the full right to be Queen, even if she has a younger brother (who she would traditionally have to step aside for). The previous centuries-old law only supported a boys right to the throne
Last edited by Kangaroofarmer; 08-02-2012 at 01:11 AM..
The law has been changed, and now the oldest female child has the full right to be Queen, even if she has a younger brother (who she would traditionally have to step aside for). The previous centuries-old law only supported a boys right to the throne
Um...hasn't it included females all along? Including currently? What if Diana's oldest child (or both children) had been girls?
Under the rules, if they were both girls, and there was no male child, the oldest girl would take the throne, but if they'd had two older girls and a young son, the son would have inhereited the crown.
I didn't know they'd changed the law of succession already.
I guess you learn something new every day !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no one is forced to do this at the Queen Jubilee...
