|
Post by spindrift on Nov 5, 2012 18:31:00 GMT 10
She only just passed me by....and thought well Camilla looks a lot better smiling than Cats Arse Bishop...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 5, 2012 18:36:45 GMT 10
Three cheers for the royals: boo boo boo!
I love how Bryce always upstages other women with her sophisticated dress sense.
Camilla looks like she got her dress from Vinnies.
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:50:03 GMT 10
What a shallow perspective from the lot of you.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Nov 5, 2012 18:53:22 GMT 10
Won't bother me....love the monarchy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:59:12 GMT 10
What a shallow perspective from the lot of you. You are free to bugger off back there if you relish the idea so much of having a head of state who has expressed a wish to become a tampon inside a woman's vagina.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 19:01:43 GMT 10
Every President/Prince etc has probably enjoined into some silly lovers talk at some time in their lives. To judge any individual on an intercepted private conversation between lovers is incredibly shortsighted. You do have a reasonable yardstick by which to judge national leaders do you? Then again rheotorical question.
Beside I thought you liked Queens?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 19:03:37 GMT 10
Won't bother me....love the monarchy I'm not a great fan of the concept of monarchy but the Royals for all their faults seem pretty decent people and as human beings put in that situation they've done very well. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been exemplary in her role.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 5, 2012 19:44:39 GMT 10
of Australia. I hope we become a Republic before then! What sort of republic? I agree that in the end either Australia will sever the connection with the British monarchy or the Brits will do it for us. But republicans have to learn the lesson of 1999 or remain a fringe "boutique" cause with zero relevance to the hopes & aspirations of average Australians. And that is that to put forward the abstract "idea" of a "republic" just doesn't wash for people out there in Moonee Ponds or Emu Plains. Back in 1999 those who advocate a republic were invited to put their case to the Australian people and they blew it. Sorry, but they did. I can accept the intellectual case for Australia severing its links to the Briutish monarchy and I actually prefer the republican model that the Australian people specifically rejected back in 1999 which is where the President is appointed by the Parliament voting as one House in a Joint Sitting on the basis of a consensus where the PM moves that Candidate X has the confidence of Parliament to carry out the role of Australian President and this motion is seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and passed by a two thirds majority. I agree with John Howard's rejection of the "direct election" model as potentially creating another centre of executive power to rival the prime minister. Nevertheless I accept the verdict of 1999. So where does that leave us with the vague issue of a waffly "republic"? No bloody where, that's where. I think government letters should be embossed on the envelope with OHMS, I think the Queen's portrait should hang in all public buildings, I think the Oath of Allegiance should be to the Queen and I think that if the British offered Australians and Ndew Zealanders the old arrangements which were abolished in the 1960s, that if an Australian or New Zealander went to the UK they were British, and if a UK passport holder went to Australia and NZ they automatically had full citizenship rights, you'd probably find that support for an Antipodean republic, even as a boutique issue among the inner city latte set would suddenly evaporate
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Nov 5, 2012 20:47:44 GMT 10
I love how Bryce always upstages other women with her sophisticated dress sense. . You're a fuckin poof!
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Nov 5, 2012 20:51:38 GMT 10
Do you lefty wankers realise that bonny prince fucking charles here is an avid believer in the great global warming god of warmining and reads his al gore bible every night ;D His old man is on the record as saying its a fucking bunch of bullshit though ;D
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 5, 2012 21:21:45 GMT 10
We should have a republic based on the American model.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Nov 5, 2012 21:26:46 GMT 10
We should have a republic based on the American model. A republic LOL, You believe in wacky bible shit like ... crapola 25.17 bullshitians ... some old dude took a bunch of animals two by two on a lovely cruise cos god left the tap running for too long in his bathroom to drown every c#nt cos he's a fuckin sadist prick that likes seeing people suffer ... get a padded cell and get yourself sorted before its too late dude.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 5, 2012 21:34:40 GMT 10
What sort of Republic? The sort where an Australian is the Head of State. So I guess it's a fringe boutique issue then for the inner city latte set. Oh, and garfield, I did say that I accept the verdict of 1999. In fact I go further: if we love the monarchy so much - and I rather like the QE2, I think she's a grand old lady with a lot of style - then it should be more in-your-face than just having the QE2s portrait on the back of our coins. OHMS should be embossed on all government correspondence - that means "On Her Majesty's Service" for those who don't know. It used to be on all letters that people got from the government. You knew it was a government letter if it had OHMS on the envelope. Bring back God Save the Queen as the National Anthem and restore the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen for all those who take out Australian citizenship or accept a job in the public service. And best of all, restore the old deal that we used to have with Britiain that if an Australian landed in the UK then s/he was British, and a Brit who landed here got automatic citizenship rights. I tells ya, if they brought that last one back in so that all those inner city latte sippers could go to the UK and get automatic UK citizenship rights, you'd hear no more about a republic....
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 5, 2012 21:39:12 GMT 10
I still cannot believe the dutchess could get away with wearing that horrible dress which you could easily find in an op-shop.
Quentin Bryce really sets the standard in dress sense, she would be comfortable in any culture (except maybe Islamic nations where the burqa is required).
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 5, 2012 21:44:12 GMT 10
That's very Woman's Day of you, Matt!
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 6, 2012 5:43:03 GMT 10
Prince Charles is a decent chap and would make a excellent head of state, as he thinks conservatives are just crass foolish people living in the dark ages.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 6, 2012 7:18:43 GMT 10
Prince Charles is a decent chap and would make a excellent head of state, as he thinks conservatives are just crass foolish people living in the dark ages.
Which is quaint of him, considering that he is the scion of a mediaeval relic and still believes he has the droit du seigneur which means that he as a prince could command a scullery wench to clean herself up and be at his royal bedchamber at time X. Ask the ghost of his first wife.
Charles is a typical Windsor male: personally weak of character who marries a strong woman. His grandfather King George 6 was like that and so was his great uncle Edward 8. If you look at Charles' son and heir William I suspect it's the same phenomenon. William's wife Kate looks as though she will be the one with the steel in her backbone. 'Twas ever thus with these Windsors: weak men and strong women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2012 8:00:10 GMT 10
Prince Charles is a decent chap and would make a excellent head of state, as he thinks conservatives are just crass foolish people living in the dark ages.Which is quaint of him, considering that he is the scion of a mediaeval relic and still believes he has the droit du seigneur which means that he as a prince could command a scullery wench to clean herself up and be at his royal bedchamber at time X. Ask the ghost of his first wife. Charles is a typical Windsor male: personally weak of character who marries a strong woman. His grandfather King George 6 was like that and so was his great uncle Edward 8. If you look at Charles' son and heir William I suspect it's the same phenomenon. William's wife Kate looks as though she will be the one with the steel in her backbone. 'Twas ever thus with these Windsors: weak men and strong women. Nothing at all like the Tudors, eh? Good old Henry VIII knew how to keep his women in their rightful place!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 6, 2012 8:16:23 GMT 10
The Windsors have a very strong idea of a woman's rightful place. Ask The Duchess of Cambridge who is the not-so-new wife of Prince William. She has brood mare obligations to fulfill and her future as a British Royal depends very much on whether or not she is capable of fulfilling them. The role of a royal Windsor wife is threefold:
1. Be fecund, in other words be fruitful and multiply
2. Learn how to smile, never have opinions on any subject, and never wear the same outfit twice
3. Select a group of charities - once you've fulfilled your brood mare obligations - structure your public life around those and ignore it when your husband exercises his droit de seigneur
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 6, 2012 9:38:40 GMT 10
You guess wrong. It is a fundamental point that an Australian ought to be our Head of State. How so Phil? This is not some trivial little quibble on my part. The question was put to the Australian people back in 1999 and their response, by 55% to 45% - which if a political party won an election on those figures would be a landslide of tsunami proportions - and with a NO vote in a clear majority in every State, was "your republic sucks!" The British had the best take on this. The headlines in the UK after that referendum were "Queen wins first election!" And she did too. Phil, we became a Federation through a democratic vote but it took several goes at it before it finally came to pass. And even then it took the British Parliament to pass a special law to make the Australian Constitution legal. I don't think that the head of state issue is a "fundamental" one at all. In fact if it were as "fundamental" as you say then the Asian Century White Paper which sets out Australia's place in the Asia/Pacific would have set as a firm goal that Australia's place as a player in the Asia/Pacific should be as an independent republic. Do the words "Australian Republic" appear in that White Paper? And if the principle of an Australian head of state is so "fundamental" then why isn't that set out clearly as a policy and constitutional goal in the White Paper? How serious is the Gillard Government about this issue really? I suspect not at all. You know what I think? I think your average Australian doesn't give a rodent's posterior. I also think the so-called "multicultural" argument that migrants are reluctant to take out citizenship of a country with a foreign head of state is bullshit. The British monarchy is a real monarchy and it has status. I grew up as a migrant kid and remember my own family's naturalisation ceremony, as well as the naturalisation ceremonies of a lot of our family's friends. All of them liked the idea of swearing allegiance to the Queen. I think loyalty to the British monarchy was the cultural glue that all the Australian colonies had in common at Federation, and it worked for all of the 20th century. True, there was that Unpleasantness with the Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 but the monarchy in Australia was strong enough to absorb it and to move on. Quite frankly I think it still works. I voted in favour of a republic back in 1999 and I understand the intellectual arguments. But it isn't enough! Australia will never become a republic simply because people like you or me have this intellectual paradigm in our minds about an Australian head of state. Nations only ever go from monarchy to a republic as a last resort. You underestimate the tenacity of monarchy as an institution. The War of Independence in the US began as a tax revolt, with George Washington proposing a Loyal Toast to George 3. The fact that the 13 British colonies in North America became the republic known as the United States was down to British stupidity. They let the Americas slip through their fingers. Similarly with the French moinarchy. There was never a monarchy that was more salvageable than the French monarchy. In fact, after they guillotined Louis 16 in 1792, the French restored the monarchy no fewer than three times during the 1800s asnd each time the Bourbon monarchy collapsed because, as they said at the time" "they learned nothing and forgot nothing". Even as late as 1870 they offered the crown of France to some non-entity who was in the Bourbon line of succession and he refused to accept it because he couldn't accept the tricolor flag, wanted the old royal standard with the fleur-de-lys, and demanded to be made an absolute monarch. If he'd been prepared to accept a British model of constitutional monarchy France would be a monarchy today. Phil, an intellectualised notion of "a resident for president" has been tried in Australia and was given the big yawn by the Australian people. That was their democratic right whether you like it or not. One thing is for sure, slogans like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" might galvanise people to take to the barricades. "No Taxation without Representation" had good market appeal, but "A Resident for President" just doesn't cut it. We had the proof of that in 1999. I think that the British monarchy in Australia is not forever. Hell, I don't think it's forever in Britain! But I do think it'll see all of us out. What will happen is that it will collapse in Australia when it collapses in Britain, or when the British themselves decide they don't want to share their monarchy with anyone else, they wrap up the British Commonwealth and say to the 16 countries that also have the British monarch as their head of state: "I say old boy, it's been awfully spiffing but we'd prefer our monarchy to be ... y'konw ... British! Pip pip, jolly good show and lashings of lemonade and cucumber sandwiches for everyone!"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 6, 2012 10:04:48 GMT 10
Oh people always muddy the waters in a political campaign leading to a vote. I don't deny that Howard's political aim was to torpedo the republic and he succeeded brilliantly. But to say that it's "all Howard's fault" that the republic sank in 1999 is to ignore the wider context. Face it mate, as a campaign it was marked by a poverty of public debate and historical shallowness on both sides. It failed because it deserved to fail. I spent the whole day of that referendum working a YES booth, and experienced for myself the indifference mixed with annoyance of being obliged to cast a vote of the majority of voters. When you work a polling booth as often as I do you get a feel for the public mood. I also attended the public meetings run by the local council in my community in the lead-up to that referendum, and was part of the tiny coterie of citizens who turned up. It was a hopeless campaign which was always going to go down in flames - and what's more deserved to go down in flames. I don't want Australia to become a republic in such piss weak terms where the constituional issues raised by deleting "Queen" from the constitution and inserting "President" are papered over. That's dishonest and people saw through it. The constitutional implications of deleting "Queen" from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act are vast and profound. In fact it will mean redrafting the whole Constitution. The "minimalist" argument is bullshit. So if you want a republic then its advocates will have to be completely upfront about what it all means, and the case they make will have to be such a powerful and overwhelming no-brainer that it will overcome the people's scepticism about it. And believe you me the people will be very very sceptical ("why do we have to vote on this shit? Didn't we vote on this back in 1999?").
And in any case neither side of politics has the slightest interest in pushing the idea. If Gillard Labor were in any way serious about an Australian republic it would have been included in the Asian Century White Paper. It wasn't. Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2012 10:50:26 GMT 10
This is a public relations sort of tour where Charles is trying to garner support from the public in his quest to have Camilla accepted so that she can be crowned as his Queen Consort.
But there will be stiff opposition to this, both here and in England. Most people see Camilla as a brazen home wrecking type who didn't care who she hurt in her plans to hang onto Charles. Diana would most probably be alive today if she hadn't been forced into the position of divorcing Charles.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Nov 6, 2012 10:53:11 GMT 10
Stellar I read results from a poll done in England not long ago and Charles and Camilla as next King and Queen Consort came out on top with the voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2012 11:05:42 GMT 10
Jody, I bet it wasn't a poll by the Daily Mail. Most of those readers appear to be against it - or were in the past.
I admit I don't like her and think that she shouldn't be crowned Queen Consort but I feel that Charles will get his way eventually. Let's hope Her Maj goes on to live to 105 - or more!! She's certainly got the constitution to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Nov 6, 2012 11:09:41 GMT 10
yes she does.....a fine lady she is.
|
|