ravenford

No worries, I'm not trying to trick you, you of course are right, it's complicated.

Back to the original topic, what really gets me is shows like Rings of Power double down on Tolkien classism by accent - intelligent elegant Elf's in posh English, common men in northern English, rough ginger dwarfs in Scottish and then bottom of the class - mud dwelling, starving savage hobbits with Irish accents

Substitute complicated with disputed and I agree lol. The Irish Government strongly dispute the term British Isles being applied against our wishes to this island, as it was invented to legitimise a land claim, not innocently by any neutral geographic body.

Unlike Scotland we've a treaty which now sets out our democratic pathway to getting the British government to finish their withdraw from our island, but we're no closer to holding the vote (and don't control the trigger).

Still raw Scotland missed their chance, but that too is a complicated topic!

As an Irish person born in the six counties of Ireland the British claim as "Northern Ireland", I can assure you that although our identity is complex, we have an international treaty (the Good Friday Agreement) between Britain and Ireland which recognises the residents of this part of Ireland have the right to identify as Irish, OR British OR both.

What's not in dispute is that Ireland has been partitioned and NI has existed for barely 100 years, and that our accents predate this political divide and are distinctly geographical - people from the island of Ireland have Irish accents

Irish isn't complicated - we're a separate island from Britain.

There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

Your words. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.

You're pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.

Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it's a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.

Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.

"Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights". Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn't come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?

Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?