Posted on 03/12/2005 7:06:27 PM PST by NZerFromHK
I think they should keep the monarchy, but just pick a new family. They could have a lottery.
Can anyone apply?
In theory we are free to do it now. New Zealand and other "old" Commonwealth countries (Australia and Canada) have now evolved to independent countries that has its own laws governing monarch succession, and the only constitution ties with Britain itself is that we share the same current monarch of the United Kingdom.
If we so choose, we can actually call in a completely different royal family as our constitutional monarch, but I suspect if we ditch the House of Windsor (not Mountbatten-Windsor as some have claimed) as our royal family, most of us to choose to go republic altogether.
Of course. I'll buy you a ticket.
It's time for a change. ;-)
Hey, it's time for some new blood! It's not all their fault, but they've gotten stale and overexposed.
Bigus dealus.
If you want to emulate the Americans, then you'll need to rethink the Parliamentary/Prime Minister system of government if you opt out of the Commonwealth/Monarchy.
Our ancesters had to devise a new system (in our Constitution) in order to compensate for what is lost when you depose a monarch. Our Presidency incorporates some of the functions of monarchy with safeguards against despotism.
For instance, what Prime Minister subject to votes of no confidence and the whims of public opinion could ever lead the country through difficult decisions where a period of tough times had to be endured before the rightness of the decision became clear?
Well, I might be more attractive than poor Charles.
However, my cousin was the one who planned to be a Queen when she grew up....
I just want one of those castles. ;-)
I have suspected that the reason Charles is being allowed to marry Camilla is that he will - within a short period of time - abdicate his succession to the throne - thereby allowing their courts to put forth William as the next to succeed to the throne.
To me .. this would be done because the people want Diana's heir to succeed to the throne - not Charles (whom many rightfully believe betrayed Diana).
Well, you certainly deserve one - with a moat! But, either somebody's gonna be chopping a lot of wood or you're gonna be dealing with some royal utility bills!!
Royalty isn't all that it's cracked up to be, you know. ;-)
Who could sort out that mess?
I just think that if they want to save the royal family, they need a new one.
I nominate Keith Richards!
How are you with an axe? ;-)
I just need a fire in the library, mostly....
Please pay no attention to those police reports - it's all a pack of despicable lies!!!
I always thought King DannyTN would be cool. Think England would put up with a southerner slaughtering the Queen's English?
Sounds like a winner, you could have a King that would be on the throne for the next hundred years. If the Drugs and Alcohol haven't killed him, the only thing that is going to take him out is going to be a nuclear bomb. LOL
When he does go, it may be a few weeks before anyone will know for sure. ;-)
Well .. it has been done before. Elizabeth's father was the YOUNGER BROTHER - her Uncle abdicated the throne. But the Uncle didn't have any children so it automatically went to the younger brother. Since Charles does have children - the parliment could skip a generation and go to William as the heir, instead of a younger brother.
Well .. good luck with the new family idea. Quite frankly I don't care what they do.
Speaking of William, have you seen recent picures. HE IS STUNNING....STUNNING....by all means, skip that generation!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.