God save the queen her fascist regime.

[SixPackBack]

As well as hosting royal banquets and receptions, Britannia was an ambassador for British business, promoting trade and industry around the globe. Indeed the Overseas Trade Board estimates that £3 billion has been made for the Exchequer as a result of commercial days on Britannia between 1991 and 1995

Plagiarized info

Who's pocket is the Overseas trade board in?.......like many pom's the shutters are drawn when subjective analysis is applied to the usefulness of the royal family. To embarrassed I suspect to be able to face the truth, that is of course the British people have been subjected to a painful collective arse shagging by successive generations of king and queens

[Grahameeboy]

Plagiarized info

Who's pocket is the Overseas trade board in?.......like many pom's the shutters are drawn when subjective analysis is applied to the usefulness of the royal family. To embarrassed I suspect to be able to face the truth, that is of course the British people have been subjected to a painful collective arse shagging by successive generations of king and queens

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

[McJim]

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

Garton's HP sauce.....there is no other.

By the way - do we celebrate 5th November coz Guido at least made the attempt to blow up the houses of parliament or because he got caught? No one has ever been able to adequately convince me one way or the other.....

[SixPackBack]

Such as ......................??

As I recently pointed out I'm not your mum, hit the books and find out yourself. However Christians being insular and slow............Queen victoria taking over half the fucken world spreading disease and misery.....you can check out the depths of misery and details yourself. victoria died in the 19th century!

[Ixion]

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

Y' can't get proper gherkins nowadays. They're just immature cucumbers.

Anyone who wants a republic :

You have a president. That president must either be a figurehead , or have real power.

Now , if the post is a figure head, then why swap an existing figurehead, known and respected by all the world , that costs us nothing, and who is limited in any would be power grab by rules set in place for centuries; for a new figurehead, a total cipher to all the world outside NZ, who would cost us millions each year , and would constantly be at loggerheads with the Prime Minister ?

If a President with real power , then tell us , what powers; how would you get the Prime Minister (who needs must lose any power that is granted to a President) to agree; and name one person , who would both be willing to accept the post (important that); capable of doing it; and that ALL the country would trust.

Anyone REALLY want Helen Clark or Jeanette Fitzsimmons as a President. With real, unfettered power?

[Brian d marge]

Garton's HP sauce.....there is no other.

By the way - do we celebrate 5th November coz Guido at least made the attempt to blow up the houses of parliament or because he got caught? No one has ever been able to adequately convince me one way or the other.....

daddies big brown sauce , happy shopper... Say no more.....

We celebrate Guy Fawkes night because after they tortured him , he told the signal which he was to give , abnd they went round the bonfires arresting everyone.... 1 king very happy ...

Stephen

[Ixion]

As I recently pointed out I'm not your mum, hit the books and find out yourself. However Christians being insular and slow............Queen victoria taking over half the fucken world spreading disease and misery.....you can check out the depths of misery and details yourself. victoria died in the 19th century!

Dude , I think you need to check those history books yourself. Both as to the actual constitutional position of the monarch post the Reform Act (I presume you know what that was) ; or even the Act of Settlement. (If you had specified Palmerston, you might have had a better case ) . And also the actual effects of British colonisation , both the most enlightened , and the most benevolent, that the world has seen. Go check out the history of the ICS (just for one well documented example) , then come back and bag the 19 centuryadministrators. Have you ever actually read an authoritive history text on the subject?

[Winston001]

Yeah but hey those guys helped out when they could, cant remember what its was called but come a local wedding they stepped up.

Damned right!

Droit de seigneur

Respect.

[McJim]

Damned right!

Droit de seigneur

Respect.

Ma great great great great great grand paw got his revenge on them. He married a sheep wi' the clap. Gie'd the first knight an itchy wullie....and later the rest o' them got itchy arses!

[SixPackBack]

Dude , I think you need to check those history books yourself. Both as to the actual constitutional position of the monarch post the Reform Act (I presume you know what that was) ; or even the Act of Settlement. (If you had specified Palmerston, you might have had a better case ) . And also the actual effects of British colonisation , both the most enlightened , and the most benevolent, that the world has seen. Go check out the history of the ICS (just for one well documented example) , then come back and bag the 19 centuryadministrators. Have you ever actually read an authoritive history text on the subject?

Not the same pro royal history books as yourself it would seem.......any changes taken place over the last 100 years are semantics and change little, the british people are still subservient to the royal family and will be until they are systematically striped of every last vestige of power and influence. The French understood this well hence the guillotine getting a work out.

[Ixion]

Not the same pro royal history books as yourself it would seem.......any changes taken place over the last 100 years are semantics and change little, the british people are still subservient to the royal family and will be until they are systematically striped of every last vestige of power and influence. The French understood this well hence the guillotine getting a work out.

Uh, just out of interest, just when do you think the Reform Act and the Act of Settlement were passed. As in , the last 100 years ?

The French don't seem to have understood that well, since they happily reinstated Louis XVIII , Charles X and Louis Phillipe. not to mention Napolean I and III , Emperors outranking even kings.

Try Dicey's Law of the Constitution;Baghot's English Constitution; Keith's Constitution of England ; Hallam's Constitutional History (you *must* be familiar with that , at least, given his pro republican position); Maitland's Const. History; Taswell-Langmeads History of etc (good one ) ;Stubbs on the english const.

I can loan you most of these if you actually want to educate yourself about what you are spouting about . or from any good public library (with many others)

Oh, BTW, "semantics" doesn't mean what you think it means. it refers to the study of the me aning of words, not "anything that disagrees with my position is wrong" . Oh, and "fascist" doesn't mean what you think it does, either.

[Skyryder]

.

Anyone REALLY want Helen Clark or Jeanette Fitzsimmons as a President. With real, unfettered power?

Where's my name.

Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

Uh, just out of interest, just when do you think the Reform Act and the Act of Settlement were passed. As in , the last 100 years ?

The French don't seem to have understood that well, since they happily reinstated Louis XVIII , Charles X and Louis Phillipe. not to mention Napolean I and III , Emperors outranking even kings.

Try Dicey's Law of the Constitution;Baghot's English Constitution; Keith's Constitution of England ; Hallam's Constitutional History (you *must* be familiar with that , at least, given his pro republican position); Maitland's Const. History; Taswell-Langmeads History of etc (good one ) ;Stubbs on the english const.

I can loan you most of these if you actually want to educate yourself about what you are spouting about . or from any good public library (with many others)



Oh, BTW, "semantics" doesn't mean what you think it means. it refers to the study of the me aning of words, not "anything that disagrees with my position is wrong" . Oh, and "fascist" doesn't mean what you think it does, either.

Fascist in the title comes from a line in a "Sex pistols" song [god save the queen]. Thank you for putting me right about the meaning of Semantic.
Here is another word, one you hold close to your heart.......Pedantic.

Becoming a historian will not change the facts. The royal family has no official mandate from the British people to do what they have done [still do], receive the level of respect that they do, have the military forces named after them etc, etc.
Did you vote for them?

Gotta say Ixion this is a bizarre stand for someone who claims to be a Communist?...really WTF?

[MisterD]

Right, lets put to bed the stupid "value for money" arguement:

http://www.republic.org.uk/royalcosts/index.php


I may as well also state for clarity's sake, I'm a Pom, I'm a republican and I will not become a citizen of this country whilst an oath to Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is required.

[JacksColdSweat]

Ok. This is where confusion lies. What people really mean by a Constitution is a clear set of rules which protects their democratic individual rights. We have that. The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

A constitution is quite different. It is a set of rules which describes the way a counntry is to be governed. You are correct about Australia and Canada in that sense - their constitutions are all about imposing a federal government over states/provinces/territories. So they aren't concerned with human rights, rather how laws are made, changed, and who they apply to.

We are so used to the American Constitution which is actually a Bill of Rights, that the terms get confused.

Incorrect.

The US Constitution is exactly what you describe above - a set of rules for governing the people

In the US The Bill of Rights is also ammended to the Constitution - this is where the now infamous 2nd ammendment appears - the confusion comes because we've all heard the term "The constitution protects my right to bear arms"

Yes it does - in the Bill of Rights which is ammended to the constitution - but the right to bear arms is not a feature of the constitution per se - rather the Bill of Rights.

I was talking about the Constitution - you were talking about the Bill of Rights. A constitution does not (usually) protect individuals in any way other than in describing how the government should work.

As you rightly point out - NZ has a Bill of Rights - it has no formal constitution