Oops. I thought that ‘period’ was a valid term for a full stop in British English and that the Americanism was saying ‘period’ in normal speech. I shall revise my comment at once, lest Her Majesty takes offence 
Oops. I thought that ‘period’ was a valid term for a full stop in British English and that the Americanism was saying ‘period’ in normal speech. I shall revise my comment at once, lest Her Majesty takes offence Wink
Carefully Crabby, your reluctance to use a minor Americanism is clearly indicative of a deep seated genocidal hatred for Americans, I suspect you may have to be shot by a proper good 'ole American boy with a Colt Peacemaker, before you take over Westminster by force of arms and go ‘postal’ on the continental USA with Britains Nuclear deterrent. :twisted:
Then maybe you should read all of your link and not just the bits that you can use to prove your point.
Organisation and objectives
Queen Elizabeth II is the nominal Head of the Commonwealth. Some members of the Commonwealth recognize the Queen as head of state.These members are known as Commonwealth Realms; however, the majority of members are republics,
I think head of state is a political task.
I mean, isn’t this really common knowledge around the world? Hey, I’m all for Britain. But the Queeen is a figurehead, a ceremonial icon. Surely the English Bill of Rights and all that came afterward has not been undone.
Do we have a bill of rights? Do subjects have rights? Must have missed that one silly me. :oops:
Yeah, we do have a bill of rights from 1688, the US one was based on it. The current shower ignore it when it suits them, but then rely on it when that suits them.
Ironman is absolutely right, and as usual, absolutely wrong.
As Head of the Commonwealth, the Queen has no political power.
The Commonweath is a forum of countries, most of which are ex-Empire countries, and HM Queen is, in effect, chairman of that forum.
This is, indeed, a non-political role and one with no political powers.
So far, right.
However, as Head of State of several of the Commonweath countries, she has all the political powers mentioned above, including the right to dissolve the Parliaments of those countries of which she is Head of State.
This does not imply that the United Kingdom, as an entity, has any rights of interference in affairs of those countries.
The Queen is not the United Kingdom.
As to political power, again that is, technically, not held by the person of HM Queen, but by The Crown, the post of which she is the current holder.
All laws are passed in the name of the Crown in Parliament, and must receive the Royal Assent before passing into law.
As for this rubbish :
[i]Holy guano Batboy. You’re wack. There is no nation today over which Britain has the political authority to dissolve it’s government. You are in outers space dude. Come back.
:lol: She said it was so and waved her wand and it was magically delicious! Sure. I imagine the Aussies fell for that one eh? They just went along with it eh? Puleeeeze. Come back to Earth. Come back![/i]
Perhaps you should read this :
[i]On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.
The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives.
A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.
The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government’s budget bills.[/i]
http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
As for the Australian people “just going along with it”, yes, they did.
It was the law.
An election was held and the dismissed Government was defeated.
Do we have a bill of rights? Do subjects have rights? Must have missed that one silly me. Embarassed
Yes, we do. It was a 1689 act of Parliament that established Parliament as the main governing body in the UK. It allowed limited Royal Perogative for some aspects of Government, and stipulated that Parliaments consent for most government is essential.
It does not, IIRC, have much to do with individual subjects/citizens rights, as one might expect.
As to the relevance of it to the this debate; the Queen (or King) is still required to approve new legistlation once it has been passed through both houses, and the Queen retains the power to dissolve Parliament. However, as she cannot govern without a Parliament, a new Parliament would then have to be selected (by election) before any new legislation, taxation etc. could be done.
I think this might be where Ironman is getting confused. The Queen can dissolve the British Parliament (In fact, she does so before every election!) at her own discretion, but elections must be held for a new Parliament in fairly short order. As I understand it, this is the system that prevails in states such as Australia, although the power is also vested in the Governor General, as the Queens representative.
This is part of what I believe Americans call “checks and balances”; Parliament cannot rule without the consent of the Queen, who is non-political as she is unelected, and the Queen cannot rule without Parliament, who are supposed to represent the will of the population through the democratic process. In an extreme situation, Parliament could prevent a future Monarch from trying to rule unaided, and, perhaps more likely, the Monarch can prevent extremist Governments holding power by forcing new elections, or block some legislation that might be, say, genocidal or severly inhumane in its nature, from becoming law.
HTH
Alex
(My highlighting)
One other misunderstanding I’d like to clear up.
The word Commonwealth has nothing to do with wealth, common or otherwise.
It has nothing to do with taxation, common or otherwise.
It originates from the archaic form commonweal, meaning common good.
Problem fixed. I just went back and edited the posts so they should all work now. 
Yea…[/quote]
Thanks, to both of you.