freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:19pm:


Well that depends on what  'heirs' and 'successors' was defined to be. If 'heir' refers to the legitimate son or daughter of the reigning monarch and 'successor' to an aristocrat who is the indirect heir (a niece, nephew, cousin, 2nd cousin etc) or the heir as declared by the British Parliament who is not the most closely related as occured with George I upon the death of Queen Anne and Victoria after both George IV and William IV died without legitimate heirs.

Are you absolutely certain that the term 'extend to' constituionally speaking is not intended to mean exclusive to all other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:51pm:


It matters in constituional law what terms such as 'monarch', 'heirs', 'successors' and 'extends to' were actually intended to mean. It is no good just making up new definitions to suit yours or my point of view. It's just not that easy.

Can you imagine the cost of a constitutional debate trying to wangle a hare-brained interpretation out of what have been for over a century undisputed definitions of terms?

Also you have not offered anything on how the 'monarch' would be appointed and why we would have a GG and a HOS. What would be the point of the two positions? The current point of the role of GG is to represent the foreign head of state as the Vice-Regal because the  foreign HOS cannot be present due to the fact he/she is in England. That would not be the case with an Australian HOS when he/she is required to act in that role.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:43pm:


My scheme is a suggestion of how, I agree. The others are suggestions of who not how they would be elected, which is the point.

However, my scheme does not exclude an actual amendment to the constitution nor does it entertain the possibility of having an Australian HOS and a GG representing that HOS. Mine is a parliamentary republic with a system for appointing the HOS involving eminent Australians and not Parliamentarians.

I wouldn't contemplate taking the idea to the people that we play silly buggers with the constitution, twist its terminology into linquistic knots and squeeze out of it via the square root of bullshit that 'successors' really means Cate Blanchett who will be appointed by never-you-mind and as the Australian HOS will be known as Queen Cate.

Oh... and we'll keep the GG because.... ah... well... he's doing a damn good job.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 3:55pm:


Come on, no serious republican is that superficial. A republic is the adjective that describes the rule of nation by the people of that nation.  What it is locally called if not a parliamentary or presidential republic is irrelevant. You can call the model a Bunyip Razoo if that's what the people wanted. Functionally it will be a republic.

I don't have a problem with any terminology. If you noticed in my previous emails, I've not used a term for the head of state. I used the acronym HOS to avoid that debate. I used the term parliamentary republic to define what in fact my version of republic would be (otherwise) known as if, say, Bunyip Razoo doesn't cut it with the people.

I would, however, not be in favour of an hereditary HOS foreign or otherwise.

Anyway, enough of this constitutional stupidity. A serious debate would always involve a constitutional change that would need to be put to the people to define the role of the HOS and define what we mean by Head of State and what authority over Parliament that role should have.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 3:55pm:


Australia doesn't have a 'throne'.  For Cate Blanchett to be Australia's Queen she would need to succeed Queen Elizabeth II.  It is the English Sovereignty where she needs to succeed - the Constitution is clear in this regard.

May I suggest you read the Constitution instead of crikey?

It is the English Sovereignty where she needs to succeed - the Constitution is clear in this regard.

Where does the constitution say that our parliament cannot legislate who succeeds QEII?

Let's not just crap on about ridiculous interpreatations of the constitution.

Why is the interpretation rediculous? Where does it say who the successor must be?

Well you obviously misinterpretted it.

There is nothing in the bits you quoted that dictates who may succeed the Queen.