[British] Commonwealth [countries] may renounce Queen Camilla - and the Crown

Times Online ^ | March 24, 2005 | By Richard Beeston, Roger Maynard and David Adams

[ken21]

'bout time.

the americans did it in 1776.

then the amrericans replaced british royalty with politicians, movie, music, sports, and tv stars.

[mewzilla]

THE confusion triggered by the Prince of Wales’s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles...

What confusion? Chuckie tried to pull a fast one. Quelle suprise. His loyal subjects should've seen that one coming.

[ValenB4]

Don't downgrade your own opinion like that.

People should get over Charles and Camilla. The shame of it is that Charles & Camilla really loved each other for all of those years but didn't or couldn't act on it. Charles went through the motions of a marriage to Diana because he was supposed to, and Diana was just a starstruck girl who became disenchanted with the whole thing.

[Gabz]

Yoko in general is bad.......nekkid, clothed, singing or not singing.

I had contact with her 20+ years ago - she actually makes Hitlery pleasant by comparison.

[Gabz]

I was actually just trying to make a joke about people and opinions........without going to the standard line about we all have them, like other things.

Personally, I don't give a flying flip if he marries her or his polo pony.

I do question whether he is really able to assume the mantle ofthe crown considering how much of a wuss he was in bowing to marrying someone other than the woman he loved/loves. I have no doubt he really and truly loves Camilla and do not understand why so many would deny him the happiness he apparently will get from this marriage.

I've got no use for him, and never have - but apparently she sees something in him.

[shaggy eel]

,,, New Zealand will select it's own head of State?

[NZerFromHK]

There are many people whose beef with Charles have nothing to do with his marital status or record. They regard the Prince Charles as like Michael Moore on religious "ecumenism", environmentalism, WOT, etc. Now it is no big deal if he does not try to promote them openly but the fact is that he is trying to raise his stance to public prominence (something which no monarch since George V had done - although his son Edward VIII or later the Duke of Windsor had tried). In other words, he could be trying to breach the constitutional limits his ancestors had gradually set.

In contrast, Prince William is more conventional in his worldview. It is said that he is politically much more moderate than his father and could well be quite conservative when compared with Charles.

[naturalman1975]

Speaking as an Australian with a fair knowledge of how our Constitutional law (including those aspects from the British Constitution that still apply) works, and with, I think, a clear view of how most Australians think, let me say that in my view this article (and others like it) is looking at the wrong things - at least with regards to Australia.

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.

[shaggy eel]

,,, she's a life support system for a pair of ankles, I'm sure. Having said that, I bet she's not as neurotic as his first wife.

[NZerFromHK]

This one is much better, unfortunately he died far too long ago:

[dagnabbit]

I thinks it's nice that the residents of the EU's NW Islands Zone get to pretend once in a while that they're a sovereign country, much less the center of an empire.

They undoubtedly find it fun - sort of like dress-up day at school.

[NZerFromHK]

Link to the original image is broken, and here's another one:

[concrete is my business]

Here, here.

Stick with the magna carta.

English commonlaw has stood for hundreds of years.

Why give that up for an unknown future?

I love the American republic but there is no guarantee a new Austrailian republic would function in the same way.

[jordan8]

Prince of Wales’s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles could precipitate a new wave of republicanism

Up the StK&NRA!

[MadIvan]

There is no alternative. It must be King William V. Charles, shut up and sit down.

Regards, Ivan

[Ashamed Canadian]

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.

[Neophyte]

Hi Shaggy. As usual, I'm late to the interesting discussion. Actually, the picture you posted is the 100% sufficient rebuke to the crap the article is full of.

To begin with, New Zealand's and Australia's overwhelming republicanism is the journo's wishful thinking.

Australians HAD a referendum on monarchy or republic just about a year ago, and republicans lost. Pollsters and media trumpeted inevitable demise of the monarchy there exactly like they did the victory for the Labor before the last Aussie elections. The only thing their spectacular failure proves is that both are full of radical campus alumni. What's new?

As to NZ, Helen's, her lesbo-communist coterie's and chardonnay revolutionaries' opinion is not the country's opinion. It's shame that the Commonwealth's procedures will leave the leaders, not the people of the member states to decide this constitutional issue.