History HubΒ permalink
On this day: 6 November
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 6th November 2008
1999: In a national referendum, Australians vote to keep the British monarch as their head of state.Β
Did the Australians vote to keep the British monarch as their head of state - or did they vote to keep the Australian monarch as their head of state? -
Message 2
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
I saw this, Vizzer, and lost it later. I am not Australian of course but I think NZers at least would think of her as the British monarch. We might consider her the Queen of New Zealand in the sense that she is the Queen over New Zealand, but I don’t think we would think of her as the New Zealand monarch. Maybe ID or wollemi will answer for Australia.
We have a NZ monarch – the Maori King, though no-one calls him the New Zealand monarch either. Our governor general is however thought of as the New Zealand GG. (But they do live here and now are generally born here.) Our present governor general was born in Auckland of parents born in Fiji whose parents were born in India.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 3
Posted by Charles Babbage (U2239092) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Vizzer is technically correct. We voted to keep the Australian monarch who is British as our head of State.
If Britain became a republic tomorrow there would no British monarch but the Queen would still be the Australian monarch. -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Yes as Charles states, QEII is technically the Queen of Australia. But I don't think too many people view her in that light, they see her as the British Queen rather than Australian.
Although, correct me if I am wrong I wasn't in Australia at the time and didn't vote, the referendum was defeated not because Australians necessarily wanted to keep QEII as the Australian monarch but rather because the appointment of a president was to be decided by government and not by popular vote. -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
It does indeed seem to be the case in the Commonwealth Realms that Elizabeth Windsor is now widely perceived be the 'British monarch' or even the 'English monarch'.
This was evidenced in the coverage of the recent Commonwealth of Nations Heads of Government Meeting hosted by Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The song 'God Save The Queen', for example, was widely reported by the UK media as being the 'British national anthem'. Similarly during the recent World Cup in neighbouring New Zealand it was described as being the 'English national anthem' and this description no doubt received the approval of the (English) RFU. -
Message 6
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
I think it was Barry Humphries who I first heard point out how many Irish names were prominent in the supposedly Australian republican movement (Keneally, Keating, Cleary, etc). It seems the Australians didn't vote either to keep the British monarch or to keep the Australian monarch; they voted to keep out the Irish republicans.
-
Message 7
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
While I think your first statement is correct, Vizzer, using the RWC as an example isn't particularly helpful, as this was a special case where each team had to have their own national anthem. What is England's national anthem if it is not God Save the Queen? They don't seem to me to have a national song they can call upon apart from this one. (Land of Hope and Glory? Not a great description of England at this precise moment! Or of many other places, of course.) And it couldn't be called anything other than the English anthem on that occasion, as the rest of us all had our own.
The Commonwealth at the World Cup countries certainly won't care - they all have their own songs, even if they sometimes share GSTQ as well. It is only sung in NZ now when the Queen or Governor General is in attendance (and I would suspect not often when the GG is around, unless it is quite a formal political occasion). Wikipedia says also on Anzac Day but our local Anzac service only has the NZ anthem sung. Till quite recently it was only sung in English, but I complained about this, they added the Maori verse the following year. People don't always listen to me, but that time they did.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 8
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
While I think your first statement is correct, Vizzer, using the RWC as an example isn't particularly helpful, as this was a special case where each team had to have their own national anthem. What is England's national anthem if it is not God Save the Queen? They don't seem to me to have a national song they can call upon apart from this one. (Land of Hope and Glory? Not a great description of England at this precise moment! Or of many other places, of course.) And it couldn't be called anything other than the English anthem on that occasion, as the rest of us all had our own.
The Commonwealth at the World Cup countries certainly won't care - they all have their own songs, even if they sometimes share GSTQ as well. It is only sung in NZ now when the Queen or Governor General is in attendance (and I would suspect not often when the GG is around, unless it is quite a formal political occasion). Wikipedia says also on Anzac Day but our local Anzac service only has the NZ anthem sung. Till quite recently it was only sung in English, but I complained about this, they added the Maori verse the following year. People don't always listen to me, but that time they did.
Cheers, Caro.Β You may recall the uproar at using Jerusalem as England's national anthem at the Commonweaalth Games in Delhi, apart from being very long and Land of Hope and Glory (including about Victorian industrial factiories). It is noticeable that when The Queen arrived for the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne it was Not God Save the Queen but Advance Australia Fair that was played.
On the 11th November is the 36th anniversary of Australia having their directly-elected government removed by the Governor-General which ended up in the referendum. -
Message 9
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
Seems like yesterday! The referendum was quite a while after that, though, but I suppose it was a defining moment. I am not in sympathy with people who want an elected president/governor general and indeed that is perhaps my main worry if NZ became a republic. (The general feeling here is that one day we will become a republic, but let's not think about it today. Suits me.) I think having a figurehead removed from the democratic system is best, even if occasionally it might lead to problems as in Australia.
We are just about to have an election here and the way people decide on who they will vote for, as well as the way politicians pander to any whim they see and the media reports every trivial photo opp or silly scandal, does not fill me with confidence that people choosing their governor-general would do better. We have been very ably served by our GGs over the years, and they have been appointed carefully. It's a much better system. (I speak as someone who, while relatively thoughtful and quite politically aware, nevertheless has been known to decide on who to vote for in the election booth using reasons that could be considered sentimental or even silly.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 10
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Monday, 7th November 2011
Caro. If NZ became a republic would they need to change the system of how the GG/President gets elected? Couldn't they just keep what they have, but without the pretense of Monarchy?
I agree with you though, electing a GG might be almost as dumb as electing judges like they do in the USA. -
Message 11
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 7th November 2011
I don't know what our rules are exactly, RusEvo. Without a written constitution we should be allowed to do what we like, but I presume this would be one of those occasions where you would need 75% or whatever it is to change anything. Or more likely some referendum like this one on MMP which has a dozen built-in ways to take it slowly. But the problem would be the politicians bending over backwards to find out the 'will' of the people, and the people deciding you must have democracy in these matters. Disregarding that democracy brings quite a lot of upheaval and constant change and tends to favour a certain type of photogenic popularist person.
I think Australia found that just getting rid of the monarch as head of state was a lot more complicated than originally anticipated and the resulting furore has put back the republican movement there a lot. Measured change is quite difficult.
Cheers, Caro.
What's your understanding of our rules for this sort of thing? -
Message 12
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 7th November 2011
RusEvo, why is it dumb for citizens (note 'Citizens' not 'Subjects' , 'Vassals'?) to elect their Local Judges? Will of the People and all that.
-
Message 13
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 7th November 2011
Caro its claimed that some of the former British Colonies still bear Homage to the Crown was for Protection and Trade not for political consideration. Japan had their eyes on Australia for many years and the powers in Australia were well aware of it. Britain was a vital link for Australia's and New Zealand farm products. Regarding Canada, they could have cast off close relations with Britain as they did not have the need of protection or trade with Britain as being close and having good relations with the USA, for many in Britain they wonder why the Canadians are always eager to join Britain in her wars, I was taught in elementary school, standard 3, in Britain in the 30s. Times still the same?
When New Zealand declared it not to allow nuclear vessels to dock at her ports the USA claimed they would exclude NZ from protection of the Pacific Pact or some other nonsense. No country would allow New Zealand fall into a potential enemy's possession. Nations say, and do stupid things. -
Message 14
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 7th November 2011
I can't speak for RusEvo but I have suggested why the 'will of the people' is not something that should be pushed onto everything, even though that is the popular thought these days. People not longer trust experts, but I at least trust them a lot more than people who have little more than gut reaction to go by. I personally think more positions should be appointed, not less.
NZ did suffer quite a lot from its nuclear position, with much less influence in ANZUS and similar treaties. But NZers do like feeling independent and a little maverick, so this is still a popular policy in NZ, and America has thawed a little over the years. I presume, like you, that western powers would come to our rescue if the need should arise (and it wouldn't from an outside source that hadn't already attacked other places).
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 15
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 7th November 2011
Caro, not knowing the laws in other States but in California a voter can vote for the District Attorney, Judges, Sheriff, County Tax Collector, School Boards and other County positions, also many State positions, some say its good and others bad, but much better that having them thrust on you by politicians. In effect it can be a training ground, and there are also the Appeal Courts. When I lived in Britain even as a boy I knew of miscarriages of Justice. A couple I remember was of a young women who list her sense of smell owing to a work accident, she asked for compensation owing to her loss of smell, she was asked for an example she cited she now could not smell cooked Brussels Sprouts, the judge dismissed her claim, saying she should be pleased not being able to smell Brussels Sprouts. Another a boy passing a stadium and a sanctioned cricket match was in progress, a ball came over the wall and struck him in the head knocking him out and later causing headaches, he sued for damages, the judge ruled one could not expect to go through life not receiving unintended injuries. These and other cases I read in British National Newspapers in the 30s.
Regarding amounts of compensation given to injured in the USA, the amount is awarded by a Jury, a Jury of your Peers. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but can be frustrating to some at times. -
Message 16
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 7th November 2011
These and other cases I read in British National Newspapers in the 30s.Β
You wouldn't read about them now; I think Britain has become a very litigious society and this certainly doesn't seem to me a good thing. Great for lawyers but not for many others.
I read, though, that people freed in the USA after many years of imprisonment after a miscarriage of justice are not entitled to any compensation. They would be in NZ with a similar style of justice to Britain.
Cheers, Caro.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.