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(a)comcast.net
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com