The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion > Royal Chit Chat

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 07-25-2014, 02:31 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,811
Under the majority opinion in the U.S., the idea of no royalty is almost a sacred religious tenet, as is most things we think were envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

As an aside, I've always found it interesting that despite our collective aversion to monarchy, we are probably the only developed country in the world that still believes in Divine Right - if I had a nickel for every recent candidate for president who has mentioned, "God has told me to run for President"....
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #82  
Old 07-25-2014, 02:40 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,811
My understanding is this: at the time of the Revolution, approximately 45% of the population were patriots - the rest were neutral or loyalists. Those who opposed Britain did not oppose the notion of "king" per se, the patriots opposed several things: 1) Britain's refusal to allow American settlement beyond the colonies, as the French and Indian War was quite costly, 2) a group of planters (such as those in Virginia where most of the founding fathers came from, wanted freer trade), 3) and of course we've always hated taxes, especially our southern fellow citizens.

We were not adverse to the idea of monarchy. When we won the war we had no idea what to do, what type of government to form - it took almost 10 years to get our acts together. We in fact offered the crown to Washington, who rejected the idea. As for the First Lady, Martha was referred to as "Lady Washington" as we had no idea what other honorific to give the wife of the President, a title she was not really all that adverse to...

I don't think that a monarchy is coming back to the U.S., however. I don't have the time to give all of my reasons, and it's too complicated an explanation.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #83  
Old 07-25-2014, 03:26 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,478
We often tend to overlook that the inter-tribal conflicts during not least the 1700's just east of the Mississippi, was just as much about economy (I.e. control and access to natural resources, not least fur) as a struggle for living space as a result of colonist expansion.

But the woodland tribes fought most enthusiatically among themselves before the colonies began to expand in earnest. Some claim it led to, if not a direct population decline then certainly a stagnation. Hence the widespread practice of adopting prisoners.

It's intersting to speculate what would have happened had the thirteen American colonies not been able to form a union. Would it have led to a "Balcanisation" of Eastern America? Or perhaps to a mixed Native/European confederacy?

I don't believe Britain would have been able to maintain direct control over the American colonies in the long run.
Too large and growing population, with too many natural resources, attracting even more settlers. Requiring too large a military presence to control or alternatively requiring unacceptable political concessions of the British government.
Keep in mind that Britain by as late as 1780 was not the industrial, economical, and trade power it was forced to become just 25 years later.
__________________
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future...
  #84  
Old 07-25-2014, 04:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
...Those who opposed Britain did not oppose the notion of "king" per se...
The loyalists who favored the continuation of the union with the British Crown got their own country in North America. It's called Canada !

In hindsight, if the British Parliament had granted the American colonies in the 1770's the same degree of autonomy it gave Canada in the second half of the 19th century, the American colonies and Canada could have become a single federal dominion under the Crown which would probably have lasted until the present day. In that scenario though, the American Southwest, including Texas and California, probably would have remained a part of Mexico and slavery would probably have been abolished much earlier in North America.
__________________
  #85  
Old 07-25-2014, 05:34 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 777
Should the United States become a Monarchy?

In My opinion while I am a Royalist and Monarchist and like Royalty and the idea of Monarchy I think Peoples would disagree on it being the best form of Government. It really depend on who monarch, etc, etc. Britain and Denmark has shown how Monarchy can be a good form of Government and France and Russia has shown how Monarchy can be bad thing and although all Monarchies has their good and bad monarchies.

And don't get me wrong, You can the same about a Republic as well whether it Presidential System like the U.S (or France) or not. It no perfect system itself either. While the U.S Government right now is corrupt and most of the country is disgusted by the Leadership of Congress and The President and with the all bi-partisanship in Washington (which has gotten worse then it ever was with Obama in office) and there being Americans who are Royalist or Monarchist most would rather remain a republic then suspended. There have been good presidents and bad presidents just there ave been bad and good monarchs. Presidents have shown how a Republic can be a bad thing and be a flawed system and how it can be good. However if a elections was held tomorrow most would certainly vote to stay a republic however many would agree a broken system (as is the U.S) need to be fix.

If The U.S wanted to reverse to a Monarchy whether it be a U.S Born citizen or a Foreign Monarch it would have happened already. The best chance of that happening would have been in the first 100 years after the Revolutionary War especially with The British condemning the civil War.

As much as I like Queen Elizabeth, Her Family and Follow, like and Support the British Monarchy and Royal Family and sometimes wishes The Queen was our head of state I think the U.S should stay a republic and just vote every single politician out of office in 2016.

Not many countries who were Monarchies then became a Republic reinserted their Monarchy. There have only been a few with Spain being a good example of that and for them it has work out well by reinstating the monarchy. And some have became a republic, then abolished it and became a republic and became a monarchy again before going back to a republic for example France and Greece.

And one more thing Different forms of Government work for different Countries, Monarchy might work for Britain but it doesn't mean it will for The U.S just as a Republic work for U.S but doesn't mean it will for Britain who which was a Republic for a short time but got rid of it and Monarchy is now cemented in their history, identity and culture as Republic has became cemented in our over the last 200+ years. And we live in a different time now so monarchies will ore likely not be reinstated or become but more likely be abolished.

All systems have pros and cons


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
  #86  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:38 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 387
A constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and an elected government is in my eyes the best thing you can have in a Country, but the most important is that the head of state does not have political power. The US should separate the head of state and head of government, but this will probably never happen.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
  #87  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:52 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
A constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and an elected government is in my eyes the best thing you can have in a Country, but the most important is that the head of state does not have political power. The US should separate the head of state and head of government, but this will probably never happen.
I very much agree that having a separate head of state and head of government is a good idea, if only because it's nice to have politics taken out of some things (and I think a constitutional monarchy is a very nice way for the government to be arranged). But that ship has long since sailed in the United States. People are very protective of the founders of this country and of the Constitution, and though Americans have varying interpretations and perceptions of these things, I think most would be united in thinking that having any kind of monarch would just be counter to what the United States is (for better or for worse).
__________________
  #88  
Old 07-25-2014, 10:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 384
Niall Ferguson's book Virtual History includes a detailed discussion on multiple scenarios in which U.S breakup with the British Crown could have been avoided.

Ferguson claims for example that the American colonists would have been satisfied with a "personal union" where Britain and America would exist as two separate and independent kingdoms, sharing however the same monarch, pretty much like England and Scotland from 1603 until 1707. Considering though that a similar arrangement did not arise within the British empire until the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, it would be unrealistic and far-fetched IMHO to assume that such proposal would be viable or even considered seriously in 1776.

A possible alternative to both the pre-existing colonial "status quo" and full independence within a personal union would be, however, some kind of extended "home rule" where a federal American parliament would be given control over matters such as e.g. taxation and public debt, tariffs and trade, monetary policy and banking, immigration and naturalization, Indian affairs, criminal law, armed forces and militias, while still acknowledging at the same time the formal supremacy of the British parliament to override legislation and relying on the imperial government in London for handling of diplomatic relations. Local matters such as education, hospitals, civil and property rights, municipal government, or public works would be under the control of each individual colony, hereafter renamed "states" or "provinces" within the American federation.

As you can probably tell, the settlement described in the previous paragraph is basically what Canada got in 1867 and was in place until full sovereignty was achieved in 1931 (see, however, Note 1 below). Again, it is still improbable that late 18th-century British politicians would agree to such bold proposals more than one century in advance, but, if they did, most of the American grievances, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, could have been dealt with satisfactorily avoiding the need for a breakup with the Crown.

Note 1: Technically speaking, even after the adoption of Statute of Westminster, the British parliament still retained residual legislative powers with respect to some Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia. Those residual powers were only abolished in Canada as late as 1982 and, in Australia, only in 1986.
__________________
  #89  
Old 07-25-2014, 11:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,193
I think the point here is we are all here because royalty fascinates us. Their lives, their activities, their history and their bling. We didn't come to The Royal Forums because we are fascinated by constitutional monarchies and are holding our breath till the day we oh so luckily get our own royal family and an apolitical head of state.

The beauty of the US is we all have different ideas, different opinions and revel in our own rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No system of government will ever be 100% trouble free and will always hit snags in the road. Where there are more than 1 person, there's going to be differences on how to do things. Sometimes even 1 as there are people that lose arguments to that person that faces them in the mirror.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
  #90  
Old 07-25-2014, 11:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 384
A discussion on ways the American breakup with the Crown could have been historically avoided in the first place is legitimate and, in fact, as I mentioned before, that topic has been an object of investigation by serious academic historians like Harvard professor Niall Ferguson.

Personally, I believe that, as far as the topic is concerned, a comparative examination of U.S and Canadian history is extremely valuable as Canada provides a real-world example of an alternative political evolution where independence from Britain was achieved gradually and consensually while retaining a link to the Crown. Actually, it suffices to look north of the border to see how constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government work in a North American country far away from Europe.
__________________
  #91  
Old 07-25-2014, 11:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,380
I apologize to the mods for the off topic-ness of this post.

I've come to wonder if Australians would be happy to retain the monarchy if something was done to rectify the foreigner aspect of it. If, say, when HMQEII dies her realms were to be divided 4 ways, amongst each of her children, then divided further as they pass, and so on, until each of the current 16 Commonwealth Realms has its own monarch. So, say, when HM dies Charles gets 4 realms, Anne 4, Andrew 4, and Edward 4, then when Charles dies William gets 2 and Harry gets 2, and when William dies (assuming he has 2 children) George gets 1 and Cambridge Baby 2 gets 1.
__________________
  #92  
Old 07-27-2014, 12:02 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
I'd say it is more about the "system" rather than the people, if you get my meaning.

The system works, so why change it? I think that is what is appealing about it not so much the love for a monarch or weather the person is a foreigner...although that doesn't help I guess.

I could be wrong.
__________________
  #93  
Old 07-29-2014, 11:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I apologize to the mods for the off topic-ness of this post.

I've come to wonder if Australians would be happy to retain the monarchy if something was done to rectify the foreigner aspect of it. If, say, when HMQEII dies her realms were to be divided 4 ways, amongst each of her children, then divided further as they pass, and so on, until each of the current 16 Commonwealth Realms has its own monarch.
Again, it is off-topic, but I find it interesting to compare the similarities and differences in the governments of Australia and Canada. Here is what comes off the top of my head.

Similarities

  • Both countries have a federal system characterized by a division of jurisdiction between the national government and the governments of the constituent units of the federation (called "provinces" in Canada and "states" in Australia).
  • Legislative power at the national level is vested in both countries in a bicameral parliament consisting of an Upper House styled the Senate and a Lower House, styled the House of Commons in Canada and the House of Representatives in Australia.
  • Both in Canada and Australia, the number of members to which a province/state is entitled in the Lower House is proportional to its population.
  • In both countries, executive power at the national level is formally vested in the Queen represented by a resident Governor General appointed by the Crown. In practice, however, executive authority rests with a cabinet of ministers drawn from parliament and responsible to the Lower House. The cabinet is chaired and picked by the prime minister, who is normally the leader of the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats in the Lower House.
  • Executive orders issued by the Governor General on the advice of and with the countersignature of one or more politically responsible ministers (e.g. to enact regulations, implement treaties, or appoint state officials like judges or ambassadors) are referred to as "orders in council" both in Canada and in Australia.
  • Each province in Canada or state in Australia has its own elected legislature, an executive council responsible to that legislature and chaired by a premier, and a Crown-appointed governor (in Canada, styled "lieutenant-governor") who represents the Queen.
  • The judicial branch is appointed in both countries by the Governor General in council, but judges are independent of the government and, in the higher courts, can be removed exclusively on grounds of misconduct or inability to perform their duties by a resolution adopted by both houses of parliament.


Differences


  • The Canadian constitution enumerates the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the federal (national) government. Conversely, the Australian constitution enumerates the matters under jurisdiction of the federal government and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the states. Most notably, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, but under state jurisdiction in Australia.
  • Australian senators are popularly elected and serve for a maximum term of 6 years. In Canada, on the other hand, senators are still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister and serve for life or until they reach the age of 75. Due to its non-elected nature, the Canadian Senate refrains from vetoing or introducing legislation, performing instead a legislative review role similar to that of House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
  • General elections to the Australian House of Representatives are held at most every 3 years, with the possibility of a snap election if the House is dissolved by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister before its term expires, e.g. in the event of a vote of no confidence of the House in the government or a request by the prime minister for an early election. In Canada, on the other hand, the maximum term of the House of Commons is 5 years subject to a dissolution by the Governor General and an early election in conditions similar to those previously described in the Australian case. However, under Canadian electoral law, barring any early dissolution, general elections to the House of Commons are now always held in a fixed date in the month of October of the fourth calendar year following the last general election.
  • The Australian Senate can also be dissolved together with the House of Representatives, for example in a scenario of deadlock between the two chambers, triggering a general election for the two houses. In Canada, since senators serve for life, subject only to compulsory retirement at age 75, their mandates, like that of the life peers in the British House of Lords, are not affected by a dissolution of the House of Commons.
  • All Australian states are represented by the same number of members in the Australian Senate. In Canada, the provinces are grouped in 4 divisions with an equal number of senators per division plus a smaller number additional senators from the federal territories and the province of Newfoundland specifically (which only joined Canada after 1949).
  • The Canadian constitution includes an entrenched bill of rights styled the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"and the Canadian Supreme Court can disallow acts of parliament or of the provincial legislative assemblies in case of conflict with the Charter. Australia has no constitutional bill of rights.
  • The legislature of all provinces in Canada now consist of a single, popularly elected legislative assembly. The Australian states, with the exception of Queensland, still retain bicameral elected state legislatures, typically consisting of a more numerous legislative assembly (or "house of assembly") with shorter terms and a less numerous legislative council, usually with longer terms.
  • Australia has a single formula for amending the federal constitution, which requires double approval in a popular referendum by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there are multiple, different amendment formulas depending on the afffected matters in the constitution, including: approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all provinces; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the two-thirds of the provinces having in the aggregate 50 % of the national population; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the affected provinces only, or approval by the federal parliament alone.
__________________
  #94  
Old 07-30-2014, 09:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Again, it is off-topic, but I find it interesting to compare the similarities and differences in the governments of Australia and Canada. Here is what comes off the top of my head.

Similarities

  • Both countries have a federal system characterized by a division of jurisdiction between the national government and the governments of the constituent units of the federation (called "provinces" in Canada and "states" in Australia).
  • Legislative power at the national level is vested in both countries in a bicameral parliament consisting of an Upper House styled the Senate and a Lower House, styled the House of Commons in Canada and the House of Representatives in Australia.
  • Both in Canada and Australia, the number of members to which a province/state is entitled in the Lower House is proportional to its population.
  • In both countries, executive power at the national level is formally vested in the Queen represented by a resident Governor General appointed by the Crown. In practice, however, executive authority rests with a cabinet of ministers drawn from parliament and responsible to the Lower House. The cabinet is chaired and picked by the prime minister, who is normally the leader of the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats in the Lower House.
  • Executive orders issued by the Governor General on the advice of and with the countersignature of one or more politically responsible ministers (e.g. to enact regulations, implement treaties, or appoint state officials like judges or ambassadors) are referred to as "orders in council" both in Canada and in Australia.
  • Each province in Canada or state in Australia has its own elected legislature, an executive council responsible to that legislature and chaired by a premier, and a Crown-appointed governor (in Canada, styled "lieutenant-governor") who represents the Queen.
  • The judicial branch is appointed in both countries by the Governor General in council, but judges are independent of the government and, in the higher courts, can be removed exclusively on grounds of misconduct or inability to perform their duties by a resolution adopted by both houses of parliament.


Differences


  • The Canadian constitution enumerates the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the federal (national) government. Conversely, the Australian constitution enumerates the matters under jurisdiction of the federal government and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the states. Most notably, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, but under state jurisdiction in Australia.
  • Australian senators are popularly elected and serve for a maximum term of 6 years. In Canada, on the other hand, senators are still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister and serve for life or until they reach the age of 75. Due to its non-elected nature, the Canadian Senate refrains from vetoing or introducing legislation, performing instead a legislative review role similar to that of House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
  • General elections to the Australian House of Representatives are held at most every 3 years, with the possibility of a snap election if the House is dissolved by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister before its term expires, e.g. in the event of a vote of no confidence of the House in the government or a request by the prime minister for an early election. In Canada, on the other hand, the maximum term of the House of Commons is 5 years subject to a dissolution by the Governor General and an early election in conditions similar to those previously described in the Australian case. However, under Canadian electoral law, barring any early dissolution, general elections to the House of Commons are now always held in a fixed date in the month of October of the fourth calendar year following the last general election.
  • The Australian Senate can also be dissolved together with the House of Representatives, for example in a scenario of deadlock between the two chambers, triggering a general election for the two houses. In Canada, since senators serve for life, subject only to compulsory retirement at age 75, their mandates, like that of the life peers in the British House of Lords, are not affected by a dissolution of the House of Commons.
  • All Australian states are represented by the same number of members in the Australian Senate. In Canada, the provinces are grouped in 4 divisions with an equal number of senators per division plus a smaller number additional senators from the federal territories and the province of Newfoundland specifically (which only joined Canada after 1949).
  • The Canadian constitution includes an entrenched bill of rights styled the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"and the Canadian Supreme Court can disallow acts of parliament or of the provincial legislative assemblies in case of conflict with the Charter. Australia has no constitutional bill of rights.
  • The legislature of all provinces in Canada now consist of a single, popularly elected legislative assembly. The Australian states, with the exception of Queensland, still retain bicameral elected state legislatures, typically consisting of a more numerous legislative assembly (or "house of assembly") with shorter terms and a less numerous legislative council, usually with longer terms.
  • Australia has a single formula for amending the federal constitution, which requires double approval in a popular referendum by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there are multiple, different amendment formulas depending on the afffected matters in the constitution, including: approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all provinces; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the two-thirds of the provinces having in the aggregate 50 % of the national population; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the affected provinces only, or approval by the federal parliament alone.

I wonder how much some of these differences are owing to a difference in the demographics of Canada vs. Australia. I haven't really studied much Australian history, so I could be completely off base, but to the best of my knowledge the Australian states originated in British colonies. As such, they would have entered into their confederation with the same cultural backgrounds - or at least similar. In contrast, Canada has Quebec and as such from the earliest moments of confederation has had to deal with the issues of combining French and Anglo cultures (other cultures were largely ignored, however present they were). The strength of the provinces is the legacy of this class - from the start Quebec ensured that it was protected from the Anglo-majority.

My initial question was more... Well, I'm aware that there are a number of Australian republicans on the site, Bertie being one. She often seems to be of the opinion that monarchy is good, but having a foreigner as monarch of Australia is not beneficial to Australia (an opinion that I wholeheartedly understand and in some ways agree with for Canada). Which is why I asked the question - would she, or some of the other Australian republicans, support an attempt to gradually make the Australian monarch more Australian and less British.
__________________
  #95  
Old 08-01-2014, 04:47 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I wonder how much some of these differences are owing to a difference in the demographics of Canada vs. Australia. I haven't really studied much Australian history, so I could be completely off base, but to the best of my knowledge the Australian states originated in British colonies. As such, they would have entered into their confederation with the same cultural backgrounds - or at least similar. In contrast, Canada has Quebec and as such from the earliest moments of confederation has had to deal with the issues of combining French and Anglo cultures (other cultures were largely ignored, however present they were). The strength of the provinces is the legacy of this class - from the start Quebec ensured that it was protected from the Anglo-majority.

My initial question was more... Well, I'm aware that there are a number of Australian republicans on the site, Bertie being one. She often seems to be of the opinion that monarchy is good, but having a foreigner as monarch of Australia is not beneficial to Australia (an opinion that I wholeheartedly understand and in some ways agree with for Canada). Which is why I asked the question - would she, or some of the other Australian republicans, support an attempt to gradually make the Australian monarch more Australian and less British.
How would one make an "English monarch more Australian and less British"?

To me the bigger issue is about one holding such a position by birth only, no actual earning of it or working for it. Monarchy in Australia seems archaic but can hold its charm in England - although that is totally up to the English to decide of course. Would I be more accepting if the British monarch became an Australian? It would help I guess but I would wonder at why he/she became Australian and where their heart really was.

Naah! Too old fashioned and so not what I see Australia as. We are young, vibrant yahoos and so not into that old, stiff upper lip stuff...Hehehe!

Love to watch though...from far, far away...
__________________
  #96  
Old 08-01-2014, 05:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,723
If Queen Victoria had sent out one of her sons/daughters/grandchildren to be the Kings/Queens of places like Australia or Canada or New Zealand over 100 years ago - and thus they were now Australian, Canadian or New Zealanders it might have worked but I don't think any of us would say accept Beatrice being asked to become the Queen of Australia and come here permanently to live and take over the work of the GG.
__________________
  #97  
Old 08-02-2014, 09:07 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 561
LOL!! I do agree...can you imagine it?
__________________
  #98  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:35 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If Queen Victoria had sent out one of her sons/daughters/grandchildren to be the Kings/Queens of places like Australia or Canada or New Zealand over 100 years ago - and thus they were now Australian, Canadian or New Zealanders it might have worked but I don't think any of us would say accept Beatrice being asked to become the Queen of Australia and come here permanently to live and take over the work of the GG.

Thank you, Bertie. This was the answer I was kind of expecting. I wonder if it would be different if the Queen's grandchildren were somewhat different, and had been raised more to expect to lead a public life with public duties. If perhaps the divide happened in the 30s, between George V's children...

All very hypothetical, and off topic though. Thank you for the answer (and to you as well, AA).
__________________
  #99  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,723
It could have worked in the 1930s maybe but I suspect that after WWI the chance really was lost. Henry, as GG of Australia, didn't go down well - he was too uppity for the Aussies by then so I am not sure if the attitude with which George V's sons were raised would have worked in the dominions by then 30s even.
__________________
  #100  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:10 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,380
Ah, yes.

I think right there you hit the differences between Canada and Australia on the head. In as much as both nations had WWI as a war of independence of sorts, and both have really tragic stories from the war, Canada didn't really emerge from it less-British while Australia certainly did. It seems to me that every nation has its "bad guy" within its national context, and for Australia that seems to have become Britain, while for Canada it's more the US (or Canada itself, if you're French or Aboriginal).
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
monarchist, politics, royal, royalist tea party, united states


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
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
Harald & Sonja Visit the United States 2005 pdas1201 King Harald and Queen Sonja 38 03-08-2005 05:00 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 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]