Re: In defence of Monarchy

Michael Blair wrote:
> 
> The monarchy and aristocracy in the NAC does not seem such a bad idea.
> Here, for what it is worth is my justification (Australians take
careful
> note please ()

Monarchy - yes. Aristocracy OTOH... but I'm speaking as a supporter of
the Monarchist faction here. The Republicans outnumber us, but can't
decide whether the Govorner-General replacement/President should be
directly elected, or elected by the Parliament.

My own feelings can be summed up in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Having had a good read through the Oz constitution and associated bumf,
there is definitely a case for sweeping away some of the powers of the
Crown. But as you say, a Monarch, especially one halfway round the
world, can be expected to act impartially, and be a good foundation in
case of constitutional crisis (as happened here in 1975).

This WOULD be off-topic, except that I haven't decided exactly what type
of government the OU has. For that matter, is the House of Windsor still
(at least titularly) head of the NAC? If not, perhaps the OU could have
them... :) That would certainly be a good excuse for Oz splitting from
the Commonwealth.... that, and the flood of Revanchist US refugees who
liked the good old US constitution signed in Philedelphia, and none of
this newfangled Redcoat stuff from Up North.


-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale