Queen Dropped from Victoria’s legal system

In a bid to place Australia closer to a Republican future, references to Her Majesty have been removed from the state of Victoria’s legal system.

This latest push for the removal of the monarchy is not an isolated incident. Victoria has also scrapped the title ‘Queen’s Counsel’ (QC) and ended the practice of new lawyers swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Rob Hulls, the state’s attorney-general and acting Labo(u)r premier, said:

“Having cases presented in the name of the Queen of England is an outdated colonial tradition that has really passed its use-by date. Substituting the director of public prosecutions for the Queen or Regina reflects the legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and its monarch that has been achieved by Australia.”

Hulls denied that the timing was intended as a snub to Prince William, due to make a visit at the end of January.

David Donovan, of the Australian Republican Movement, was more than a little annoyed with the royal system getting in the way of football loyalty.

“We would find it unbelievable that Prince William, who hasn’t been to Australia since he was in nappies – and who as president of the England Football Association has strongly promoted its bid for the 2018 World Cup, in direct opposition to Australia’s bid – would be able to speak to Australians on our own national day.”

The monarchists in this southernmost state are defending the system of monarchy at full-steam, however.

“The people in 1999 took a decision in which they affirmed that we should remain a federal commonwealth under the crown,” said Professor David Flint of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. “It’s completely wrong for governments to remove all reference to the crown as a gradual sort of thing.”

Philip Benwell, chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, defended the invitation to the Prince.

“Prince William will be King of Australia in the future and it’s therefore appropriate that he’s invited to speak,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6832692/The-Queen-dropped-from-Victorias-legal-system.html

On the morning of June 20, 1837, England’s Princess Victoria was met by Prime Minister Melbourne, who bowed in deep reverence to her. The young lady, aged 18 years, had just become Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. She succeeded her uncle, King William IV, who had died only a few hours earlier.

Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the first Empress of India, until her death on January 22, 1901. Her reign lasted 63 years and 7 months, longer than any other British monarch before or since.

Her descendant, Queen Elizabeth II, is the only sovereign who may trump Victoria’s place in the history books. Her Majesty has already been declared to be the oldest living British sovereign at age 83, surpassing Queen Victoria’s 82 years and 4 months.

In 2012, Elizabeth will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee as Victoria did in 1897. Once the Queen celebrates this milestone, she has only 3 years and 7 months to go before she breaks Victoria’s record. It will be Elizabeth who is the longest lived, longest reigning UK monarch ever.

Many republicans are kicking up a stink over the Queen’s anniversary, declaring that they will not allow a public holiday to celebrate her jubilee. These Labour MPs equate it to celebrating “vermin”.

It is their right to protest, but it is also good manners and diplomacy to keep one’s mean mouth to themselves. How can we expect these Republicans to hold any power if this is how they behave? What would happen if, God forbid, one of them became Prime Minister, declaring on a personal note that a head of state was scum? Shameful.

Long live the Queen, and God save us from small-minded, embarrassing politicians.

“No offence, Prince, but our ties to the monarchy should end,” says Jeffrey Simpson of Canada’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Simpson offers up a summary of the excellent relations between Canada and the UK and even expresses respect and admiration for the Queen. When it’s Charles’ turn for the throne, however, Simpson says Canada will probably say farewell.

“[...]the issue is less about Charles himself, although personalities cannot be removed from public matters, as about the appropriateness and the fit of the British monarchy – and it is a British institution, no matter what its clangorous defenders say in Canada – for contemporary Canadian realities.

Our governments generally agree on world matters – climate change excepted these days. We are fighting together, as we have in the past. We share the more sensitive intelligence information, which we do with few others. The number of Canadians with family ties to Britain and vice versa is considerable and valuable. We trade with each other, talk sensibly to each other, work together. Few relations for Canada are as free and easy as with Britain. But they are British, and we are Canadians. That is not a statement of threat or disapproval or arrogance, but rather of fact.”

Will Canada truly say farewell, or will King Charles have a chance to see his face on the Loonie?

Winegums and Wilders: The latest RoyaltyNow! episode. See it today!

A mini-RoyaltyNow! podcast. Enjoy!

I bet you didn’t know it, but the United States is … a monarchy.

What!?

Don’t worry: this is familiar territory for us. We were a monarchy once before when King George III was king of the New England colonies. That is, up until the Revolutionary War. After the war, we threw off the shackles and forged a new identity as a free nation without titles or hereditary positions….

Read more…