And if the Queen dismissed an Australian PM for not curtsying, it'd be a massive shitstorm, and I don't think it'd jsut be Australia that started reconsidering becoming a republic.Lizardon said:Just a technicality but no the Queen can't fire Julia, that power is only held by the Governor General, who is approved by the Queen, who as far as I know has always said yes to whoever we've proposed. That is the extent of her involvement in Australia.
Look, there's really no other way to say this but what the fuck are you on about?StBishop said:It's not stupid to expect a civilian of any type to bow to their monarch. Ever.
It's even less stupid to expect someone to bow to their boss. Because that's exactly what the Queen is.
If she says so, Julia loses her job. No questions asked.
Actually, the GG can't fire the PM except by request of Parliament... of course, to be honest, the GG can't do much more than take a shit except by request of Parliament. Glorified rubber stamp and dignitary greeter... fucking cush job.Lizardon said:Just a technicality but no the Queen can't fire Julia, that power is only held by the Governor General, who is approved by the Queen, who as far as I know has always said yes to whoever we've proposed. That is the extent of her involvement in Australia.
yeeeahhhhhh except for the part where, while Australia is self governing, it's technically The Commonwealth of Australia, which has Queen Elizabeth II right at the top of the governmental structure.Cheshire the Cat said:It is stupid to expect one nations leader to bow to another. Hell, why did the queen not bow to her? She was in her country after all.
Have you considered giant fibreglass tourist traps? I've got the perfect idea for one at Cockfosters.surg3n said:What else is there in England to attract that all important tourism pound? - a big wheel, football, a filthy river or 8, street crime, growing unemployment...
We're not allowed to give Liz II beer anymore... Not since Menzies got her shitfaced and she made a complete arse of herself.I never met an Australian that I didn't like, because I never met an Australian who didn't bring me beer!.
I don't understand how it was disrespectful. She wasn't mocking the traditional or anything, she simply decided, as I've told is allowed, to not curtsey, but instead perform a more dignified (for her) greeting. A lot of women who've been meeting the Queen haven't, they've bowed their heads instead which I think is a perfectly valid way to pay respect and greet the Queen. It's what most men do as well. No one in this day and age is going to do a full bow or curtsey to anyone. It's an outdated practice.Blablahb said:People aren't outraged over that someone forgot it, they're pissed because Gillard ads to a long tradition of republicans disrespecting everything and everyone that doesn't fit into their views.Vault101 said:anyway it seems people are having a fit over the priminister not curstsying at the queen..EVEN THOUGH as I understand she was fully aware of what was and wasnt aproprite, the custey being optional
and I do not fucking get it, I would understand mabye if the prime minister was somhow rude and didnt act apropritely...but this is just fucking stupid
It's that this is a typical example of republican respectlessness, is why people are angry about it.
If Gillard didn't want to have to greet the head of a ceremonial monarchy, among other duties, she shouldn't have signed up for the job. Right now the Dutch PM is meeting Putin and Medvedev. His views on the Russian semi-dictator Putin are clear, he strongly disapproves of it. Do you think he really wants to meet Putin? Of course not. Still, he does his job as leader of the trade delegation, goes through all the official stuff, etc etc.
Which is why it didn't cause a stir that Rutte had scheduled meetings with human rights activists before meeting Putin. That's how diplomacy works.
Ummmm I said the Queen can't dismiss an Australian PM, regardless of whether or not they curtsied.thaluikhain said:And if the Queen dismissed an Australian PM for not curtsying, it'd be a massive shitstorm, and I don't think it'd jsut be Australia that started reconsidering becoming a republic.Lizardon said:Just a technicality but no the Queen can't fire Julia, that power is only held by the Governor General, who is approved by the Queen, who as far as I know has always said yes to whoever we've proposed. That is the extent of her involvement in Australia.
No offence, but I do have to clarify the Difference between a Feudal Monarchy ('medieval monarchy') and a Constitutional Monarchy (British Government). They are completely different structures of government, Feudal being lead by a Despotic Leader having true authority over their domain by allowing Barons and Lords to rule their fiefs, and a Constitutional Monarchy being a government in which a Parliament decides the countries direction and rules over them, with a Monarchy forming an Auxiliary Power Role or being refined to a 'Figure Head' Role.Vault101 said:anywya no systm is perfect, but its better than other systms (especially medievil monarchy)
Women curtsy, men bow. Though I do think it is unnecessary.Vault101 said:anyway it seems people are having a fit over the priminister not curstsying at the queen..EVEN THOUGH as I understand she was fully aware of what was and wasnt aproprite, the custey being optional
Agreement from the UK here.the reason this annoys me so much is I actually do not understnad the relvence of the monarchy
I didn't even know she was over there. No embarrassment possible if it hasn't been picked up on in the rest of the Commonwealth.but again, a bunch of twats start coming out with nonsense like "embarsed Australia" and "disrespectful" its really grinds my gears...
You just answered your own question!surg3n said:...Because England doesn't need the royal family to attract tourists...pfft!
What else is there in England to attract that all important tourism pound?
football,
You've never been to Finland have you...surg3n said:pay 3 times the tax you would anywhere else for anything else
Yes they do watch football, as much as anyone else in Finland, and not just my grandparents.surg3n said:your grandparents maybe.
I certainly would, I actually believemost people would...surg3n said:Some people consider it a great honor to meet the queen,
Got to go, must befriend some australians...surg3n said:because I never met an Australian who didn't bring me beer!.
My highschool Study of Society teacher misinformed me it seems.RhombusHatesYou said:Look, there's really no other way to say this but what the fuck are you on about?StBishop said:It's not stupid to expect a civilian of any type to bow to their monarch. Ever.
It's even less stupid to expect someone to bow to their boss. Because that's exactly what the Queen is.
If she says so, Julia loses her job. No questions asked.
Australia inherited the primacy of the parliament over the crown from the UK, which was established in England after having a boisterous civil war about it. It's even in history books, just look up 'English Civil War, the'. The Crown and it's representatives have effectively been rubber stamps for whatever Parliament wanted since then.
That goes without even mentioning all the legislative work in the 70s and 80s to remove all direct influence of any UK governance on Australia, including Liz II having any say in anything. We only keep her around because she's already on the money.