Jonathan A
Active Member
malkin86 said:Then I suggest you start campaigning for a republic.
If people actually kept up to date with the developments at the Reserve Bank, the Queen no longer is on our $5 notes, it's Sir Henry Parkes.
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Queen Camilla (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fashionista
- Start date
If people actually kept up to date with the developments at the Reserve Bank, the Queen no longer is on our $5 notes, it's Sir Henry Parkes.
MoNNiE
Active Member
Actually, your reference to Sir. Henry Parkes fully replacing the queen on the $5 was only for the year 2001 to comemmorate of course, the Centenary of federation~
it has now gone back to the queen..(you must of at least noticed that with the $5 change u might get back with purchases)
though you can still get the old henry parkes note, but since they arn't printing any more off they'll slowly disappear
http://www.rba.gov.au/CurrencyNotes/NotesInCirculation/current_notes_in_circulation.html
it has now gone back to the queen..(you must of at least noticed that with the $5 change u might get back with purchases)
though you can still get the old henry parkes note, but since they arn't printing any more off they'll slowly disappear
http://www.rba.gov.au/CurrencyNotes/NotesInCirculation/current_notes_in_circulation.html
The British royals (especially Charles and his company) are in a mess, full of scandals etc etc. The Danish and Swedish royals are relatively scandals free. Charles should seriously consider abdication to let his son to succeed the throne.
As for our $5 notes, yes the Queen Liz is back, all newish $5 notes are now have her face on it, Henry Parks note was released for a while during 2001 and its now back to the queen.
As for our $5 notes, yes the Queen Liz is back, all newish $5 notes are now have her face on it, Henry Parks note was released for a while during 2001 and its now back to the queen.
Jonathan A
Active Member
Gough Whitlam said:
On your first pointL the Danes and the British Royal Family are related, so they can't be scandal free if you view it that way.
And for your second point, thank your for the clarification. Good to see Her Majesty back on the $5 note.
K
katie_tully
Guest
I thought only John Howard and old people were staunch monarchists.
Monkey Butler
Pray For Mojo
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 644
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
LOL, I remember being shown that in about year 9. It was pretty classic at the time.Iron woman said:
fashionista
Tastes like chicken
im a monarchist..only if the monarchy actually has some reasonable, worthwhile input into the democratics of a country....and if the monarchy are hot.katie_tully said:
conclusion...i dont want charles as king
Jonathan A
Active Member
katie_tully said:
Bad news, 72% of electorates were against the Republic last referendum. There is also a Young Monarchist movement. I am a member of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy - and our branches only get larger.
Jonathan A
Active Member
malkin86 said:
Good luck to them as our constitution would provide them with some difficulties as would the constitutional developments of England.
K
katie_tully
Guest
Bad news, 72% of electorates were against the Republic last referendum, because the majority of them were against what John Howard was proposing, not because 72% if electorates agree with having a monarchy.Jonathan A said:
Have you a decent argument as to why we need to have a monarchy, apart from not wanting to cut the apron strings?
Jonathan A
Active Member
katie_tully said:
I have a lot of arguments FOR monarchy. I was merely making a point in response to the above issue.
The referendum posed two reforms, one to the preamble (John Howard's idea) and then the republic question. BOTH were refused.
Additionally more and more Australians are opposed to the republic, parties who bring up the issue in election campaigns, usually never do well, e.g. the Democrats, The ALP at the federal election.
Australia by nature is quite conservative, in order for the ALP to succeed they have had to resort to paying off the electorate or in state's situation take a right wing social approach. My point here is that out ofo 40 or so referendums, only 8 have been agreed on, many have had to be put before the populace numerous times, e.g. our federation.
My beliefs for staying under the Monarchy are based on traditions and legal stability. There is no benefit in us moving away from England, niether legally nor socially. We are Australia!
The republic question was phrased in such a way that the people would have about as much say in the Head of State under the specific system that was proposed as they do now... And doesn't the Queen do effectively nothing here, unless she decides to come on holidays? She doesn't overrule the GG. She's a figurehead.
Jonathan A
Active Member
malkin86 said:
I will be honest. The Queen has the authority to overrule any bit of legislation passed by the parliament within a year. This power is never used, and it has advantages. It means if our Seperation of Powers fail, there is another safeguard.
I will point out if people want to understand the constitutional monarchy in Australia, they ought to also refer to our conventions, the unwritten aspects of the constitutional structure, such as the Governor General and Queen following the advice of the parliament.
Jonathan A
Active Member
Iron woman said:
Head of state is a term used in international law generally.
Jonathan A
Active Member
Nor do I intend to.Iron woman said: