steven l. rubenstein wrote:
So look, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But these few quotes give me the impression that the Queen has some role in that polity called Australia. I am not sure that the Queen is head of state, maybe the Governor-General is the head of state -- but it seems pretty clear that s/he derives this status from the Queen.
Soooo ... can someone explain to me why there seems to be some controversy over this matter?
Curiously yours, Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
We're not a republic, and have never been one. The fact that we needed to have a debate over whether we should become a republic would tend to indicate that we are NOT a republic.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Age, in Melbourne, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Australia, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Daily Telegraph, in New South Wales, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Sydney Morning Herald, in Sydney e, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
There is only one person of all the Australians on Wikipedia who states we are a republic. One! And we have a locked [[Government of Australia]] page to prove it because of the revert war that was ongoing.
Gah!
TBSDY