GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Sacha[_3_] · 26-07-2008, 07:15 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening

On 26/7/08 16:01, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:28:08 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 26/7/08 14:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:01:16 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 26/7/08 12:55, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:51:24 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:46:34 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and
Di
got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any
marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it
is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Divorce is common in the royal family.

But till the divorce of Charles and Di, it wasn't common for the heir to
the
throne. There was no precedent.

Famous divorces in the royal family are
Henry VIII
Edward almost VIII

Edward VIII never got divorced. He married a divorcee.

Yes. My mistake being compensated by Henry VIII doing it how many times )

Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages
that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have
thought.

almost the whole of the current generation have divorced.

Indeed. But if we look at how many current royals have divorced and how
far
removed they are from succession, and compare that with what has happened
in
the past for that same profile, I suspect my figure of 1% would be a high
one.

Probably more murders or 'accidents' to get rid of inconvenient spouses
than
Henry's total divorces which is the only precedent for divorce.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the
precedents.

Like Princess Margaret, Anne, Prince Andrew ...

None of whom had a realistic chance of succeeding to the throne...

It only needed a royal train or plane crash.

Which is why they don't all travel together.......

!!!

A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two
were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she
would
be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good
avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.

Amazing! but not king of Oz?

'Monarch' would apply to us too. Oz won't do anything about getting rid
of
the monarchy till the Queen dies (much to my disgust) and then we'd have
to
have a referendum and to stage that would take so long that a new monarch
would already be a reality.

I predict that you will wrong

*Somebody* will be monarch because the monarchy never dies. Le roi est
mort, vive le roi.

Not of Oz it will become a Republic.

Yes but the point that Farm is making is that the preparations for such a
referendum and the implementing of it will mean that Australia *will* have
another monarch

George VI died at the beginning of 1952 the Coronation wasn't until June the
following year. More than enough time to organise a referendum if that's what
the party in power wants to do; and what better time to do it?

The coronation is a mere formality for all its pomp and ceremony. The very
second one monarch draws his or her last breath, the next in line IS
monarch. There is no gap whatsoever. When King George VI took his last
breath the first thing his mother, Queen Mary, did, was to turn to her grand
daughter, Queen Elizabeth II and curtsey to her as her Sovereign. The
coronation used to be a very understated, almost overlooked ceremony
centuries ago. Shove a circlet on someone's head and they were crowned.
Its ceremonial aspect has nothing to do with the constitutional actuality of
the monarchy. There is *never* a pause, gap, hiatus between one sovereign
and the next. Never.

while waiting for the referendum to take place.

Australia already had a referendum in 1999

"The 1999 Australian referendum was a two-question referendum held on 6
November
1999. The first question asked whether Australia should become a Federal
republic with a President appointed by Parliament, a bi-partisan appointment
model which had previously been decided at a Constitutional Convention in
February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important
politically, asked whether Australia should alter the constitution to insert a
preamble. Neither of the amendments passed."

Something to do with EIIR being a very popular Queen, and not Charles waiting
to
be crowned.

Yes but that's not the point. The point is that the next person to be
crowned *will* be Australia's monarch even if a later referendum turns
Australia into a Republic. And that is because the mechanics of setting up
a referendum and holding it are slow and Farm has already said that there is
a reluctance to become a Republic while the present Queen is still monarch.
King Charles III will be King of Australia unless Australia holds another
referendum which votes differently to the previous one.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon