Sigh! I shouldn't have bitten.
The Australia page has been through this before, and the ,um, debate, involving someone called Daeron , whose views seem similar to yours, can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia/Archive_2.
Peter is not correct, period. India is a republic, yes, but Australia is not.
The wikipedia's articles are NOT meant to be an outlet for political hopes and fallacies such as yours and Peter's. Nor is the wikien-l.
Do us all a favour, please take them elsewhere.
I won't be corresponding further on this issue.
----- Original Message ----- From: actionforum@comcast.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:03:08 +0000
------------- Original message --------------
Peter, the Queen IS the Head of state here in Australia , though the matter is complicated by the G-G representing her.
But isn't Peter also correct that Austrailia is a republic? I thought most constitutional monarchies were republics. The salient point is whether the monarch or the constitution is supreme. If the monarch cannot suspend or amend the constitution, then what you have is the rule of law, a "republic".
-- Silverback
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l