WHAT??????????????
It has been stated I don't know how many times she will NOT be "Queen Camilla"
If and when Charles becomes King she will be "Princess Consort"........she will NEVER be Queen.
I should stress that there are a couple of mistakes in the article. Otherwise, the overview seems accurate:
1) Dependencies of and "Territories in Free Associations with" New Zealand like Niue, Tokelau, the Cook Islands, and External Territories of Australia like Christmas Islands, Norfolk Island also ahve the Queen as the head of state. The case for the Cook Island is even more complicated. The Queen as head of state of the Cook Islands derives her constitutional status by virtue of being the Queen of New Zealand, but if New Zealand becomes a republic the Cooks will decide independently if the Queen stays as their head of state even by all means they are still practically a dependent territory (they use NZ dollars, NZ is responsible for their defence and some foreign affairs, they have NZ citizenships) of New Zealand.
2) New Zealand still has a majority supporting the monarchy. I can't really say how it will go in the future, although the Times article is right taht republican sentiment is rising (probably not as fast as Dear Helen would have loved).
3) Fiji is contemplating of return to the monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
It's like Yoko and the Beatles all over again.
fyi
fyi
Ping!
Prince Chucky should just renounce the throne and pass it on to William. Thanks to modern medical technology, the queen probably has another decade or so of life left in her (longer if she takes after her mother, who lived to be over 100) which would put William in his early 30's when he took the crown. If the royal family in Britain is going to survive, it needs to shake off its reputation of being a stodgly old throwback and make itself relevant to younger Britons. Installing a king who will likely be pushing 70 when he ascends isn't the way to do that. Installing his younger son just might.
'bout time.
the americans did it in 1776.
then the amrericans replaced british royalty with politicians, movie, music, sports, and tv stars.
What confusion? Chuckie tried to pull a fast one. Quelle suprise. His loyal subjects should've seen that one coming.
Australia almost became a Republic in 1999. A Referendum was held and was narrowly defeated.
The reason the vote was so close was because there were two conflicting issues in operation.
The first is a symbolic issue, the second is a matter of constitutional stability.
I believe the evidence is clear that the majority of Australians believe on symbolic grounds that it is time for Australia to become a republic.
However - and this is critically important, the majority of Australians are also totally unwilling to sacrifice our nations stability for a purely symbolic change.
The 1999 Referendum failed because while most people support the idea of a Republic in principle, for various reasons they did not agree with the model of Republic proposed to replace our current Constitutional monarchy.
We have had a stable government in this country since Federation in 1901. Our worst consitutional crisis (the Dismissal in 1975) was resolved democratically and peacefully largely because our constitutional monarchy means that in the final analysis, critical decisions can be made by a non-politician - somebody who doesn't base their decisions on what is in it for them, or for a particular ideology.
It's not a coincidence, but a deliberate feature of the system, that most modern Governors-General have been retired Generals or Admirals or Judges - people who have served this country in one field or another for many years in a non-political capacity.
Back to my point - if Camilla becomes Queen of Australia, that may well increase the number of Australians who disagree with the monarchy on symbolic grounds.
But I very much doubt it will increase the number of Australians who would vote for a republic on those grounds.
Australia will become a republic when a model is proposed at referendum that, in the judgement of the Australian people, will give us at least the same level of stability as we have enjoyed for 104 years.
Until that happens, I really don't see much likelihood for change.
Myself, I am a Monarchist. I went to school (briefly) with the Prince of Wales, and know him slightly. I know the Duke of York quite well actually. I have met the Duke of Edinburgh - and frankly I admire all three men. I was raised in a tradition of service to the Crown and this stage of my life, I cannot see that changing.
But even so, because I love my country, if a model was proposed to change our system of government that I felt would make the country more stable and stronger, I would vote for it.
Camilla will affect the symbol. But the symbol and the substance are different things, and I think many articles I have seen over recent days are blurring the distinction.
Up the StK&NRA!
There is no alternative. It must be King William V. Charles, shut up and sit down.
Regards, Ivan
With regards to my country, this is just another attack on Canadian traditions and values. Same old, same old. Let's replace our Christian traditions with multi culti diversity, which means destroying the anglosphere. Yes, we white devils will have to be stopped.