Re: In defence of Monarchy

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Randall Case wrote:

> 
> 
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I 'think' John, in the either the FT2 or DS2 rulebook, said that the
Anglican
> Confederation was formed around the crown. 

Minor error - it's the _Anglian Confederation_. Not that Church...and
no,
I don't know what 'Anglian' means...

> But on the other hand, who is to
> say that a scion of the royal family DIDN'T go to Oz? IIRC, didn't the
UK
> transplant members of King Hussein's family to be soverigns over Iraq?
So
> there is a something of a tradition there...
> 
> As for the US, I don't think 'constutionalists' would leave the US
(ruled by a
> crown) to join up with a nation with another crown. Might happen if
the OU was
> republican based though.

Possibly. 'Constutionalists' might just stay in the exUSA and grumble;
shipping out to a colony at the first opportunity. The colony would
still
be an NAC colony, I'd say, but at least they can be a bit isolated from
the disliked Monarch...

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html
--DS2/SG2/misc--

 > 
> Scott
> 
>