Dear ACM *
Although I appreciate your friendly concern and understand the difficulty an organisation such as yours has in raising funds, I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to contribute to your treasury at this point in time, or at any other point in time I might add.
The reason for this is, primarily, because you're just so damned wrong it's not funny. Although I have been approached by less deserving organisations (the chap who was fundraising for the KKK who approached me as I was "engaged in personal business" in a bathroom in Pennsylvania springs immediately to mind), I can't consider your organisation worth contributing to.
Let's look at the bare facts.
Elizabeth Windsor, usually referred to as Queen Elizabeth II, nee Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gothe (before the family changed it, that's their business why) is currently the head of state of Australia because she's the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now I have many friends and even a few relatives in said United Kingdom, however it's a completely different country on the other side of the planet and I have no desire that their head of state should be our own. Their language is similar (although more restrained) and they have a past association with this nation which dates to prior to my date of birth, however their phone prefix is +44 (as opposed to our +61) and their internet domain suffix is .uk and not .au. They are a different nation, with different goals and ideals. I don't want to adopt their head of state any more than I want to adopt their cricketing standards.
The reason that the head of state of the UK is also head of state of Australia is essentially, as I'm sure you'll agree, by right of conquest. I'm not convinced that I'm willing to be ruled by a head of state who rules by right of conquest.
Furthermore, her legitimacy as head of state of the UK is also founded by right of conquest. This is given that she is, very vaguely, a direct descendent of the original conqueror, William I (known as "the Bastard" or perhaps more frequently "the Conqueror"). Even for someone without a thorough grounding in history, a comparison of William's two nicknames would lead one to immediately infer that he did not rule by any legitimate claim of law. This acceptance of William's lack of legitimate claim is generally accepted by most historians today.
Even if you accept the doubtful claim that William was the rightful king of the nation that eventually became the UK, there are many counter claims to the actual legitimacy of claim of his current batch of successors. The most obvious one would be the abdication by legal fiction of the last ruler of the house of Stuart and the installation of the Dutch Stadtholder William III of Orange as King (and Mary II as Queen) of Great Britain in 1690. British subjects today like to kid themselves that their nation has never been conquered by force of arms, but the invasion of the troops of the Dutch Republic in 1690 and the subsequent change in government in Great Britain can only be described as a successful invasion and conquest of similar nature to William's.
As I stated earlier, I'm not certain that I wish to be ruled by a head of state who claims legitimacy by right of conquest, and more specifically I am unwilling to be ruled by a head of state who claims legitimacy by right of conquest from another who claimed it by right of conquest. Who knows where this could lead to -- the UK certainly doesn't have the largest navy on the planet as it once used to, nor does Australia have an army of sufficient size to fend off invasion forces from various other parts of the planet. I am certain that the continued upholding of this type of rule as legal and legitimate could eventually result in Australia being ruled by King Pat Robertson 1st, or King Kim Jong Il 1st.
If it's all the same by everyone else, I'll put my tick in the box marked "I would rather vote for my head of state".
I hope that's OK by you guys. Sorry to hear about the funding.
* Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, if you haven't already twigged.
The reason for this is, primarily, because you're just so damned wrong it's not funny. Although I have been approached by less deserving organisations (the chap who was fundraising for the KKK who approached me as I was "engaged in personal business" in a bathroom in Pennsylvania springs immediately to mind), I can't consider your organisation worth contributing to.
Let's look at the bare facts.
Elizabeth Windsor, usually referred to as Queen Elizabeth II, nee Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gothe (before the family changed it, that's their business why) is currently the head of state of Australia because she's the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now I have many friends and even a few relatives in said United Kingdom, however it's a completely different country on the other side of the planet and I have no desire that their head of state should be our own. Their language is similar (although more restrained) and they have a past association with this nation which dates to prior to my date of birth, however their phone prefix is +44 (as opposed to our +61) and their internet domain suffix is .uk and not .au. They are a different nation, with different goals and ideals. I don't want to adopt their head of state any more than I want to adopt their cricketing standards.
The reason that the head of state of the UK is also head of state of Australia is essentially, as I'm sure you'll agree, by right of conquest. I'm not convinced that I'm willing to be ruled by a head of state who rules by right of conquest.
Furthermore, her legitimacy as head of state of the UK is also founded by right of conquest. This is given that she is, very vaguely, a direct descendent of the original conqueror, William I (known as "the Bastard" or perhaps more frequently "the Conqueror"). Even for someone without a thorough grounding in history, a comparison of William's two nicknames would lead one to immediately infer that he did not rule by any legitimate claim of law. This acceptance of William's lack of legitimate claim is generally accepted by most historians today.
Even if you accept the doubtful claim that William was the rightful king of the nation that eventually became the UK, there are many counter claims to the actual legitimacy of claim of his current batch of successors. The most obvious one would be the abdication by legal fiction of the last ruler of the house of Stuart and the installation of the Dutch Stadtholder William III of Orange as King (and Mary II as Queen) of Great Britain in 1690. British subjects today like to kid themselves that their nation has never been conquered by force of arms, but the invasion of the troops of the Dutch Republic in 1690 and the subsequent change in government in Great Britain can only be described as a successful invasion and conquest of similar nature to William's.
As I stated earlier, I'm not certain that I wish to be ruled by a head of state who claims legitimacy by right of conquest, and more specifically I am unwilling to be ruled by a head of state who claims legitimacy by right of conquest from another who claimed it by right of conquest. Who knows where this could lead to -- the UK certainly doesn't have the largest navy on the planet as it once used to, nor does Australia have an army of sufficient size to fend off invasion forces from various other parts of the planet. I am certain that the continued upholding of this type of rule as legal and legitimate could eventually result in Australia being ruled by King Pat Robertson 1st, or King Kim Jong Il 1st.
If it's all the same by everyone else, I'll put my tick in the box marked "I would rather vote for my head of state".
I hope that's OK by you guys. Sorry to hear about the funding.
* Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, if you haven't already twigged.