On 27/7/08 12:27, in article
, "FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:28:08 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

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

Australia already had a referendum in 1999

Yes, the referendum was held in November 1999 but before it was held there
was a long period of discussion the then resulted in the holding of a
Consitutional Convention in February 1998. It was the outcomes of the
Constitutional Convention that were voted on more than a year and a half
later.

Any King would be crowned well and truly by then.

Changing the titular head of a country is more than just suddeny deciding
"we'll be a Republic!". And it had little to do with the popularity of
Elizabeth. It just wasn't the right model at the time.

We are currently having a 'dialogue' about changing the preamble to the
Cosntitution and if you reread your cite, you'll notice that it was the
second item voted on in 1999. Same thing all over again and here we are all
of 9 years on.

snip

It also has no bearing on the fact that you will have a Monarch, willy
nilly. Once the current Monarch dies their successor becomes Monarch in the
very same second. The coronation is merely confirmation of that and in some
countries - Norway I think - they don't have one.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon