The monarchy and aristocracy in the NAC does not seem such a bad idea. Here,
for what it is worth is my justification (Australians take careful
note please (). Monarchy may not be the ideal political system (I
still dont know which
one is) but it makes a handy backup. In a crisis when democracy crashes and
burns the old system, of loyalty to a leader is waiting in the wings, the
military still swear allegiance to the monarch (as far as I know) so the
change is quite smooth. The old families are still there, still rich, still
influential so turning the clock back is not impossible. BTW a politician
things next year is long term, a monarch has the future
of his family to consider so he/she would really plan for the long term
(unless we have a nutter but we should know to watch for that now, maybe
the old Celtic system of electing a king from those eligible. In the FCT when
things fell apart there was not the same foundation, instead everything was
chaos until the veterans organised (we can steal
the rest off Bob Heinlein, after all arent the FCT troops based on the ones
in the movie Starship Troopers?).
> Michael Blair wrote:
> Monarchy may not be the ideal political system (I still donÂt know
Well I suppose that might work if you have a Monacrh that's anything other
than a figure head. Might actually have beeter look showing allegiance to
corporations or more influencial figures like bernie ecclestein, Bill Gates,
of Steve Forbes. <grin>
> Michael Blair wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> In the FCT when things fell apart there was not the same foundation,
Micheal, Not on your life, the FCT always has more than one grenade per
platoon, and more than one nuke per planetary assault! We also tell the troops
where to shoot to kill the bugs, not just the very well armed civil
population.
:-)
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Micheal,
I think you're confusing Rober Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers" and the
erroneously named 1997 film "Starship Troopers".
> Michael Blair wrote:
Monarchy - yes. Aristocracy OTOH... but I'm speaking as a supporter of
the Monarchist faction here. The Republicans outnumber us, but can't
decide whether the Govorner-General replacement/President should be
directly elected, or elected by the Parliament.
My own feelings can be summed up in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Having had a good read through the Oz constitution and associated bumf, there
is definitely a case for sweeping away some of the powers of the Crown. But as
you say, a Monarch, especially one halfway round the world, can be expected to
act impartially, and be a good foundation in case of constitutional crisis (as
happened here in 1975).
This WOULD be off-topic, except that I haven't decided exactly what type
of government the OU has. For that matter, is the House of Windsor still (at
least titularly) head of the NAC? If not, perhaps the OU could have them...:)
That would certainly be a good excuse for Oz splitting from
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> This WOULD be off-topic, except that I haven't decided exactly what
I 'think' John, in the either the FT2 or DS2 rulebook, said that the Anglican
Confederation was formed around the crown. But on the other hand, who is to
say that a scion of the royal family DIDN'T go to Oz? IIRC, didn't the UK
transplant members of King Hussein's family to be soverigns over Iraq? So
there is a something of a tradition there...
As for the US, I don't think 'constutionalists' would leave the US (ruled by a
crown) to join up with a nation with another crown. Might happen if the OU was
republican based though.
Scott
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Randall Case wrote:
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
Minor error - it's the _Anglian Confederation_. Not that Church...and
no, I don't know what 'Anglian' means...
> But on the other hand, who is to
So
> there is a something of a tradition there...
Possibly. 'Constutionalists' might just stay in the exUSA and grumble;
shipping out to a colony at the first opportunity. The colony would still be
an NAC colony, I'd say, but at least they can be a bit isolated from the
disliked Monarch...
In a message dated 99-02-09 15:50:50 EST, you write:
<< Minor error - it's the _Anglian Confederation_. Not that Church...and
no, I don't know what 'Anglian' means... >> I *think* that it means someone of
European desent.
-Stephen
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 99-02-09 15:50:50 EST, you write:
the angles were a tribe of britons living in eastern england years back when
the romans invaded. since the romans landed in eastern england, the first
locals they encountered where the angles, and so they used the name to refer
to all britons. it is from this name that the words "england" (ie, "angle
land") and english come.
the name survives in that the counties of essex, norfolk, bedfordshire,
cambridgeshire, hertfordshire and suffolk (iirc) are collectively known as
"east anglia". there isn't as far as i know, a west anglia. it is generally
very flat and has lots of arable farming. constable painted his classic
english rural scenes there (near dedham, not far from where i live, i think).
it is very clasically english looking in many ways.
ee, gzg-l is an education in itself.
Tom who thinks that the idea of an East Anglian Confederation might be fun
...
Thomas Anderson wrote
> > > I don't know what 'Anglian' means... >>
<shudders at hearing an Englishman abuse his own historical heritage like
that>
No, they weren't. The Angles where a germanic people who first raided Roman
Britain and then, when the Romans withdrew completely in the 5th century CE,
moved in along with their neighbours the Saxons and the Jutes and conquered
what is now called England from the romanized Britons.
Here endeth the lesson,
In a message dated 99-02-12 14:27:58 EST, you write:
<< > I *think* that it means someone of European desent.
the angles were a tribe of britons living in eastern england years back when
the romans invaded. since the romans landed in eastern england, the first
locals they encountered where the angles, and so they used the name to refer
to all britons. it is from this name that the words "england" (ie, "angle
land") and english come.
the name survives in that the counties of essex, norfolk, bedfordshire,
cambridgeshire, hertfordshire and suffolk (iirc) are collectively known as
"east anglia". there isn't as far as i know, a west anglia. it is generally
very flat and has lots of arable farming. constable painted his classic
english rural scenes there (near dedham, not far from where i live, i think).
it is very clasically english looking in many ways.
ee, gzg-l is an education in itself.
Tom
who thinks that the idea of an East Anglian Confederation might be fun
... >>
I did not know that, interesting.
-Stephen
> At 23:36 12/02/99 +0100, you wrote:
I thought that sounded more correct. Then again most of what I know about the
Angles history is drawn from that venerable old boardgame "Brittania". Blue
team if I remember rightly. I think I'm displaying all the signs of a misspent
youth...
> Oerjan Ohlson
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote
get used to it! we've been fiddling our own history for ages now, as well as
other people's. i suppose most of you think that scots clans have distinctive
tartans? ha!
> No, they weren't. The Angles where a germanic people who first raided
ah. sorry about that. i must admit that my history is pretty shaky - at
school they basically taught us about china 1945-1990, and what i know
about my own country is what i can remember from primary school, plus "1066
and all that" and a few local plays. my field is really more the
future than the past :-).
> Here endeth the lesson,
i am suitable chastened and enlightened. my thanks.
Tom