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

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.

It's been suggested that he won't be Charles III, because of
unfortunate precedents. George VII might be more likely. As he is
'Charles Philip Arthur George' any of these could be used. Too much
Armada about Philip and as for 'Arthur' we'd have no end of Camelot
and Round Table nonsense.

On 26/7/08 19:59, in article ,
"Jupiter" wrote:


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.

It's been suggested that he won't be Charles III, because of
unfortunate precedents. George VII might be more likely. As he is
'Charles Philip Arthur George' any of these could be used. Too much
Armada about Philip and as for 'Arthur' we'd have no end of Camelot
and Round Table nonsense.


At his age I can't imagine anyone ever thinking of him as anything but
'Charles'. Charles ! was unfortunate, Charles II was very popular so I've
never quite understood that 'unfortunate' tag applied to a King Charles III.

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

"Martin" wrote in message
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

Henry VIII was King not heir to the throne and exactly who did Edward VIII
divorce? You must have different history books in the UK than we have in
the former Colonies. I learned that Edward was never married prior to, or
whilst he was the uncrowned King. He did, subsequent to his abdication,
marry a divorcee.

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 the heirs to the throne don't travel together.

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

How? We've already had one referendum on the removal of the monarchy and it
was defeated. I'd be very surprised that there would be another until the
queen dies and from teh instant she dies, there is a new monarch.

On 26/7/08 00:10, in article
, "FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:
snip

Yes indeed. We live on a busy road and have a long driveway leading from
the front gate to the house. There are public toilets 10 minutes drive in
one direction and half an hour in the other. The number of times I've seen
people climb the gate (the gate!!!! don't these idiots know aobut the damage
that does to gate hinges!) to dive into the shrubbery to relieve themselves
astoudns me.

I run down the road screaming like a banshee when I see it. They usually
leave PDQ but I've been flipped the bird a few times by offenders. I wonder
how they'd like it if I pooped in their front yard under their trees?

You disappoint me. Surely you're made of sterner stuff than this. Rabbit
fencing is the answer. Electric rabbit fencing...... Our dogs stuck
their.....noses......into it once! ;-)

snip

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

"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.

"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.
--

Martin

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

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

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:27:22 +1000, "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.

The decision was made in August of 1999. There is a detailed report on the
whole
thing on the web, so next time would be much quicker.

Teh referendum failed because there were still so many unanswered questions.
There has been no ongoing serious discussion on the matter since. I fyou
think it will be quicker next time, you don't know much about government or
Constitutional change.

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:00:59 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
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

Henry VIII was King not heir to the throne

You flipped to heir after saying there was no precedent for divorce in the
Royal
family.

Rubbish! We were discussing the Heir to the throne. There is no precedent
for divorce there. And even if we think of Henry, he is the only one to
have used divorce and he did it in such a way that it can't be a precedent
and especially after the ructions caused by Edward and Mrs Simpson which is
still such close history. I can't be responsible for what is in your mind
but I know what is in mine.

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...

Nobody mentioned succession when you first started this.

I would have thought it was obvious.

(snip)

'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

How? We've already had one referendum on the removal of the monarchy and
it
was defeated. I'd be very surprised that there would be another until the
queen dies and from teh instant she dies, there is a new monarch.

You haven't noticed how the post war immigrants are a dying breed in Oz?

I assume you mean British ones? Irrelevant. Apparently non English
speaking migrants voted against the referendum in droves. They liked having
a Monarch - stable and ongoing which apparently was unlike the homelands of
many of the migrants. Can't give a cite, just read it at the time.

Google seems to think a law had to be passed in Oz to make EIIR monarch of
Oz
after George VI died.

Cite?