The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 05-03-2011, 06:01 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
My preference,too, Muhler.

I don't wish to start a discussion here, but I'd be interested to know if the republican movement is a serious proposition in Denmark.

My feeling is that when these constitutional issues come to a head, people tend to vote for the status quo. After all, neither the Queen of Denmark nor the Queen of Australia can do anything to impinge on our lives or freedoms, the ultimate considerations.
No, not serious. I'd say about 25% here in DK wish to abolish the monarchy. (*) Either out of principle, because a hereditary monarchy is basically undemocratic. Or because they are genuine republicans, who prefer a president as head of state. And then there are those who are very much against the priviledged lives the royals have and that's their main reason.

Many if not most of those who are against the monarchy tend to go for status quo should they really have to choose between a monarch or a president.
You will often hear the most critical voices among intellectuals, partly because their peers are against the monarchy, and partly because in principle.... and so on. But how would they vote when they stand alone in the box and are about to put an X?
Another loud group is often seen among the comments in the various newspapers. They are basically against the monarchy (and anything else that doesn't benefit themselves) because they are not royals themselves. They would be the first to complain about the first president as well.

(*) The approval rating however is somewhere between 75-90%, so it's very subjective and depends on how you ask the question.
__________________

__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 05-03-2011, 06:50 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Thanks for that, Muhler.

Denmark's situation sounds similar to that in Australia.

Dare I say it - another bond between us,
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 05-03-2011, 07:59 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,775
Coming in late to this, but I, too, favour option B.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 05-03-2011, 08:31 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Let's hope that if we do become a republic (getting more remote,in my opinion) that we do institute Muhler's option B.

I think that the monarchy would go some distance towards consolidation in Australia if male primogeniture were abandoned as it's been in other monarchies and if the now offensive restrictions on the monarch's marrying a catholic were removed. This last was understandable at a particular moment in history but the circumstances are not longer relevant.

I understand that Britain has many more legal, complex niceties than any other country to consider, but the longer the delay the greater the irritation. Should William and Catherine's first born be a girl, the rumblings will grow deafening.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 05-03-2011, 09:28 PM
Thena's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 419
Oddly enough, I kept hearing British commentators saying that the reluctance to change the succession laws was because it required assent from all the commonwealth realms, but no one wanted to bring it up because of Australia.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 05-03-2011, 10:29 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Yes, I've heard that too.

It is, however,a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Nor is it true. I was somewhat irritated to read such calumnies in the English press.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 05-05-2011, 07:52 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3
British royals?

I, like I think many Australians, had no real intention of watching the recent royal wedding but ended up watching several hours of it. However it got me thinking about the monarchy.

Like the title of this forum refers to the House of Windsor, in Australia the recent wedding was decribed as a "British" royal wedding. Oddly although it was a marriage between two english people, it was also the marriage of the 2nd in line to thrones of the other 15 commonwealth realms, Although once many of these realms once saw themselves as British, I would be very surprised if many citizens in any of them would now use that description. (Leaving aside the question of how many Scots would still call themselves British!)

"British Royals" does not acknowledge the other commonwealth realms. "British and Commonwealth Royals" is problematic because they aren't the royal family of a majority of the Commonwealth anymore.

"Commonwealth Realm Royals" sounds rather beauracratic but maybe it would be more accurate. "British and Commonwealth Realm Royals" is a mouthfull but except for the historical linkages is it right for the British realm to be the only named realm. For example, the Canadian and Australian crowns, as they are now distinct monarchies held in personal union, are not insignificant monarchies in their own right. In terms of GDP they are the 3rd and 5th largest monarchies (with Australia having a good chance of in the near future of passing Spain into 4th place.) with a combined GDP greater then Britain. In terms of territories they would probably be 1st and 2nd. Differing measure would get differing ranking but suffice to say they are not trivial realms.

So should the "British Royals" be described in another way and what would your suggestions be?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 05-05-2011, 08:31 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 247
Australia is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign.

The Queen's relationship to Australia is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom.
The Queen's Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
However, it seems that the Majesty of the Australian Crown is vested in the Monarch alone and not her family - therefore there is a Queen of Australia but no Royal Family! Therefore the Royal Family are the British Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 05-05-2011, 03:58 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3
ldmemail,

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the situation in Australia the same for all other 15 Commonwealth realms so it is not unique to Australia.
There are no titles other then the Queen in the Australian monarchy but there is an order of succession inherent in having a monarchy. If we remain a monarchy we don't get to vote on the who out of the royals gets our crown (We might well grant the throne to the former Mary Donaldson or more likely her sons). However by convention and agreement we will choose the same person as the other realms.

I'm curious is the crown really invested in the whole royal family, not the monarch alone? The fact that none of the other royals have titles from (to the best of my limited knowledge of Aus and NZ) the other commonwealth realms really make a difference? What makes a member of the royal family, titles, being in the order of succession or royal blood?
The Australian monarchy has an hier and a order of succession. If the Queen is Queen of Australia in Australia, I suppose my question what is the phrase for the people who are to succeed her?

I suppose what I was trying to say was the recent wedding in Britain was in Britian a British Royal wedding. In Australia, however it was not just a British royal wedding but also the marriage of the 2nd in line to our thone in the order of succession of our throne but there is no simply no language to describe in Australian terms a marriage of people in order of our succession. Any of the parliaments of the commonwealth realms might one day choose to alter their order of succession (or not alter if the UK does) but we don't have language to describe that?

To follow your logic, the future King of Australia wife will not be Queen of Australia, which makes some sense. I presume a future monarch might in consultation with the Australian Commonwealth parliament create a title of Queen of Australia for his consort? (Giving us two titles in our monarcy)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 06-02-2011, 06:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
The divine Her Excellency, Governor-General Quentin Bryce has met Pope Benedict for the first time at the Vatican during her visit to Rome for the 150th anniversary of Italy's republic.

Governor-General meets Pope in Rome - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

(Click on the image to see the higher quality photograph)

Quentin looked, as usual, unassumingly elegant during the audience. With the observed black 3/4 sleeved cocktail dress and two strands of cultured pearls, HE chose to adorn her coiffed 'do' with a fine gold chantilly lace mantilla.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:32 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldmemail View Post
However, it seems that the Majesty of the Australian Crown is vested in the Monarch alone and not her family - therefore there is a Queen of Australia but no Royal Family! Therefore the Royal Family are the British Royal Family.
The Royal Family are the British Royal Family as they simply use their British titles across all Commonwealth Realms as courtesy titles. It does not have any impact them going on a tour or attending engagements representing the Queen in her Australian, Canadian, New Zealand etc.

Even though I think it would be a good idea, it is not practical in today's world where there is republican sentiment lurking around the corner in places like Australia to create titles for the Royal Family for each member (e.g. to hypothetically make Prince Charles The Duke of Canberra, Princess Anne as the Duchess of Victoria, Prince Andrew the Duke of Perth and Edward and Sophie as the Earl and Countess of Brisbane). It would also create a large degree of confusion amongst people.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 06-12-2011, 12:28 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
And of course some of these titles already exist e.g. Duke of Perth - John Eric Drummond is the present Earl of Perth and 15th Duke of Perth (Jacobite creation).

The Brisbane title is extinct now.

I agree we don't want them having titles associated here. The time to do that past 100 years ago.

Had Queen Victoria encouraged her younger grandsons to be Kings of Australia/Canada/New Zealand they may be far more acceptable today as they would be seen as 'ours' but now they are foreigners who don't live here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:34 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

I agree we don't want them having titles associated here. The time to do that past 100 years ago.

Had Queen Victoria encouraged her younger grandsons to be Kings of Australia/Canada/New Zealand they may be far more acceptable today as they would be seen as 'ours' but now they are foreigners who don't live here.
Was there ever any concrete proposals for such a thing to happen or was it one of those things that only seemed like a good idea with hindsight?

I simply think the best way for the Royal Family to endear themselves to Australians is not with titles but by simply making regular visits and staying involved with various charities and social institutions
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 06-15-2011, 03:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley View Post
Was there ever any concrete proposals for such a thing to happen or was it one of those things that only seemed like a good idea with hindsight?
I don't think there was ever any suggestion of that - and Victoria wouldn't have given up any of her prerogatives anyway but...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 06-15-2011, 03:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley View Post
I simply think the best way for the Royal Family to endear themselves to Australians is not with titles but by simply making regular visits and staying involved with various charities and social institutions
I think this is exactly what happened when William visited Australia and New Zealand recently after the devastation of the floods and earthquakes. It was a trip he suggested making because he wanted to and was very interested in the families that were hard hit and listening to the crews that did the search and rescue during that time. The "just call me William" tells me he isn't out for the King of Australia and New Zealand title but rather concerned about the people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 10-21-2011, 12:51 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,247
Paul Keating told the Queen monarchy was 'an anachronism' - Telegraph

Paul Keating, who was Australian prime minister from 1991 to 1995, has revealed in his memoirs that he once told the Queen that the monarchy was an "anachronism".

"I told the Queen as politely and gently as I could that I believed the majority of Australians felt the monarchy was an anachronism; that it had drifted into obsolescence. Not for any reason associated with the Queen personally, but for the simple reason she was not in a position to represent their aspirations. They were Australian, she was British," he wrote.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 10-21-2011, 01:09 AM
purple_Lulu's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 68
The government following Keating's conducted a referendum on Australia becoming a republic.

And the majority of Australians voted against it (I was amongst the minority.)

It makes me so cross to hear my compatriots railing against the monarchy when they had the opportunity for change and voted against it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 10-21-2011, 01:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
The monarchy, PR wise, took a beating in the nineties and has gradually regained some ground since the Queen's Golden Jubilee I'd estimate.

Times have again changed since Mr Keatings meeting with the Queen at Balmoral and what he stated then does not reflect the current mood. That mood being a mix of deep affection for the indavidual as monarch, a relaxed attitude towards a prospective transition (whenever that may be) and a renewed curiosity and interest in the institutions three most popular members (The Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge).

Currently, 48% would vote for a republic, 38% would vote to retain the monarchy and 14% are undecided. There is no mandate for a referrendum at this time.

Mr Keating also said something to the effect that Australia would be working closely with Indonesia, and thus our national interests would have shifted direction. Needless to say that diplomatic relations between these two nations specifically are, although manageable, not particularly warm and necessarily fruitful at the best of times.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 10-21-2011, 02:36 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by purple_Lulu View Post
The government following Keating's conducted a referendum on Australia becoming a republic.

And the majority of Australians voted against it (I was amongst the minority.)

It makes me so cross to hear my compatriots railing against the monarchy when they had the opportunity for change and voted against it!

But why did they vote against it?

How many of the No votes were by monarchists and how many by republicans who would prefer to wait until another chance came along to vote for the type of republic they want.

This is why the current Labor policy is a plebiscite on the question 'Should Australia become a republic?' If that got a Yes vote then they can move to the preferred model but if a No vote then it can go on the back burner for another 50 years of so.

I voted to keep the monarchy in 1999 but would vote No now - because I don't see any relevance for the monarchy in a modern Australia.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 10-21-2011, 07:41 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Paul Keating is simply trying to sell some books by dragging this up again - I have seen him on TV tell the same story and I don't think it matters one bit. A lot of his arguments (e.g. no one takes us seriously because our Head of State is British) don't stack up and the majority of people obviously disagreed with him when they were asked in the referendum. People can always say "It was the model that lost it" but at the end of the day, the majority said no and there is no need to revisit the issue for some time.
__________________

__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
australia, british commonwealth, elizabeth ii, governor general, julia gillard, monarchy versus republic, parliament, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General discussion about royal residences auroraDaniel British Royal Residences 93 11-22-2014 11:16 PM
The Queen and Canada, Residences, Governor General, etc... Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 401 09-27-2014 10:35 AM
Swedish Residences General Discussion Josefine Swedish Royal Residences 54 06-21-2014 10:12 AM
Official Visit from Australia to The Netherlands: September 26-27, 2006 fanletizia Dutch Royals 46 10-08-2006 01:22 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]