GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Sacha[_3_] · 27-07-2008, 07:17 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening

On 27/7/08 17:36, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:13:11 +0100, Sacha wrote:

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.

Voted against )

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.

What you say is correct in UK, but not necessarily in Oz. For some reason Oz
documents I looked at all referred to The Queen and not The Monarch. As far as
I
could tell in 1952 they all referred to the King and not The Monarch and King
was changed to Queen via legislation. I could be wrong. Maybe there are
documents I haven't read that have the correct wording.

Oz constitution is even weirder than the lack of EU constitution.

I'm no expert on this, Martin but I think the new Monarch is proclaimed in
every country of which s/he is Monarch. It's possible that's what you're
talking of but I don't know. The people in alt.talk.royalty would.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon