|
Post by caskur on Aug 12, 2021 17:12:46 GMT 10
I guess "crackpot" would describe an idea that doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell of ever getting taken seriously, let alone being adopted. To that extent yes I agree with you about "crackpot". I knew that it was "crackpot" when I posted it. It was kinda the point! But there you go ... I knew you were joking. I wasn't joking though. NZ or Fiji would be perfect. Even Mars would be good.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 12, 2021 17:17:13 GMT 10
King and Queen of Mars ... I like it!!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 10, 2021 14:05:58 GMT 10
The Queen’s reign, which began by being hailed as the dawn of a second Elizabethan Age, and which appeared to go from strength to strength as the decades rolled by - she has been Queen during the terms of office of 14 British prime ministers, and also 14 Australian prime ministers - has represented World’s Best Practice in constitutional monarchy. Australians respected her enough to dismiss the Republic referendum of 1999 in a landslide. And I argue that it was a landslide. The YES vote was soundly defeated in every state. It wasn’t just John Howard’s wily political machinations, although he certainly deployed those in full measure, it was also the prestige of and reverence for the Queen herself that did it. Basically the defeat was so comprehensive that Australian republicans have gone fishing or found other things to do because as long as Her Majesty continues to draw breath you can forget about an Australian republic. They’re waiting for Charles when they reckon they might have another crack at the hoary old republic chestnut. On the cerebral level they might be right but strategically that could be bad politics: if an Australian republic is worthwhile it should stand on its own merits and not on the personality of the person wearing the crown. Besides, there is one other factor that will definitely play into the issue as Australians see it and that’s the increasing polarisation and dysfunctions of the American model. It occurred to me on several occasions when Trump got elected, during the appalling pantomime of his term of office and also in the attempted coup that marked the end of his presidency, that the Trump presidency made the Westminster model of constitutional monarchy look good. Poll after poll has shown that in the event that Australia becomes a republic, Australians have shown support for two irreconcilable conditions in the appointment of an Australian president:
1. They want to be able to vote for a president when/if we ever get one
2. They want the president not to be a “politician”.
Good luck with squaring that circle. The counter argument is that an elected Australian president could claim a mandate to exercise the powers that the current Constitution ascribes to the Queen but which she doesn’t exercise because she isn’t elected. Guess what, you’ve got yourselves an American style executive President. Which is fine as long as everyone understands that’s what you’ll get, and I don’t think that they do. Trump will forever be held up as the case study of what the American style executive presidency elected by popular vote can throw up. Contrast that with Westminster - or rather the way the Westminster system has operated as a model of stability down through the decades of the Queen’s reign - and I know which model I prefer.
And here lies the problem: not so much with the way the Queen has run The Firm down through the decades, that’s been outstanding, but with the way it’s starting to be a bit creaky now. The Queen’s commitment to duty and service has been the hallmark of her reign and when she finally does go to her Eternal Reward the splendour of the royal send off will be the spectacle of the century. And well-deserved too. But over the past few years as she progresses into her dotage she can’t crack the whip over the senior members of her Firm in the way she used to. I hate to say it because I do respect her but she’s losing her touch. So while her reign began in pomp and splendour and progressed down the decades in magnificence, it’s drawing to its end looking a little shabby. To make the solemn promise when she was 21 that “my life, whether it be long or short, shall be dedicated to your service”, was a noble thing to say. And she has striven since then to be true to that promise. But at 95 years she can’t do what she was able to do at 25 years. Her mistake, in an otherwise unblemished and magnificent career, could be that she took her promise to mean “to the end of my days”. Which would have been fine if she’d died in her 80s or maybe earlier. But by now she should have known that it was time to call it quits. This death watch that Charles is obliged to keep on his mother is unseemly. Who would object if she abdicated? The law says her son Charles will succeed her. Give him the gig and let her retire. She’s earned it and Charles badly needs something to do. They’re getting up to mischief which will hurt the Firm. The way things are going, we may find that the British didn’t just give us Federation, they could give us the republic too …
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 10, 2021 17:13:06 GMT 10
The Monarchy isn't going anywhere,... the nobles and aristocrats aren't going anywhere either.
The only tarnished things are Prince Ginger and Ex-Her-Royal-Nutcase, See-me-again,
As for the former call girl Virginia Roberts Giuffre's civil suite going after Prince Andrew, "consent" is 16 in the AUS, UK, and 17 in New York and that is why he wasn't/hasn't been charged with any criminal offences IF he had sex with her.
Giuffre lived wth 2 boyfriends during her associations with Epstein. You know, lived with them as in, husband and wife on two separate occasions.
Giuffre is being USED by the journalist and is too stupid to realize it.
I have no respect for Giuffre. She is embarrassing herself.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 10, 2021 17:28:15 GMT 10
AND incidentally Harry's charity, Archewell only has to part with 5% of donations to charity...
Giving them even $1 supports their 9 beds/16 bathroom mansion in Montecito.
They're the joke of the day.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 10, 2021 18:30:22 GMT 10
You didn’t understand what I’d posted or the gravamen of the Daily Mail article. I’m no knee jerk republican. Read my post. Read all of it. Address the issues.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 10, 2021 20:22:13 GMT 10
You didn’t understand what I’d posted or the gravamen of the Daily Mail article. I’m no knee jerk republican. Read my post. Read all of it. Address the issues. right now I am on my PROPER PC WITH A PROPER KEYBOARD. When I skimmed through your post, I was on my TV computer that has a very tiresome pop-up keyboard with limited bells and whistles. In fact no bells and whistles at all. I have to peck off a post one key at a time with a mouse. It is a virtual major chore pecking out the posts I already do write here sometimes. Now I am on my PC, I can write/type fasters BUT I'm trying to watch primetime news too.... so one day soon, maybe in the wee hours of the morning where there are no distractions, I will be able to read duffuss unsolicited piece of generic crap. If you liked it, it must be generic crap. Note my thought processes here, TY.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 10, 2021 20:59:49 GMT 10
Before I go to my bedroom and use the Smart TV.. I can answer a question.
Because the race baiting bulldust artist See-Me-again Far-sickel wants two things... (Proven, not supposition either). 1. To be a billionaire celebrity and 2. Do it off her husband's title because she couldn't do it off being a 3rd rate TV serial actress on a show which wasn't even on television.
If she were anyone else ie, not married to Poncy Prince Gingerbread she wouldn't be able to get 3 inane news articles dumped on the poor public every week.
Holy shit Einstein, it's not rocket science Batman.
Next sentence about Andrew and Charles....
hmmm, how much money did Charles give WA this year for Cyclone Seroja? A. A large undisclosed amount. CHECK
How much did the ES give our Seroja victims? What about our flood and fire victims... 80 houses were destroyed... Did you even hear any news about our catastrophes in the eastern states? Nope, CHECK.
please... republicans need to go live in a republic if they don't like our system. bye-bye!~
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Sept 28, 2021 16:43:51 GMT 10
OMG, so what is this? The Sussexes "royal" tour? Who do they think they are, staging their own quasi-official tour of New York? Acting and being treated like royalty when they're NOT royal, they're NOT representing the royal family, they have no diplomatic standing and they're NOT even there in a charitable capacity. As News.com stated - Barricades for the public? Check. A press pen for the media? Check. A rolling security cordon involving plain clothes officers, suited security guards and more than 100 New York police officers, some armed with M4 machine guns? Check. A clearly defined charitable agenda? Umm… Let’s just pause here because the question must be asked: Just what was the point of their One World Trade Centre visit? What charity, organisation or cause did it help? As the Latin phrase goes, cui bono? That is, who benefits? The only obvious answer: The Sussexes’ image. And that just about sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Sept 28, 2021 16:53:10 GMT 10
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's "self-serving" trip to New York was "so shameless," according to Sky News host Andrew Bolt. "Prince Harry might want to be treated normal but Meghan Markle obviously very much wants to play the royal," Mr Bolt said. "So off they went to New York, with a cameraman ... apparently to film it all for their Netflix documentary. "The whole three-day trip was orchestrated to mimic a royal tour." The Sussexes spoke at the Global Citizen Live concert in New York where they demanded new eco laws to halve US emissions by 2030. The Sun reported the pair then flew home on a private flight - a Dassault Falcon 2000 jet to their mansion in Montecito, California. The mansion with 18 bathrooms! “I do think this is hypocrisy. I’m sure there were plenty of scheduled flights," Royal author Penny Junor told The Sun. “I do not understand why they are behaving as if they are superstars. “His father has been known to take scheduled flights. His brother takes scheduled flights. “This totally muddies the waters of their climate message. They are shooting themselves in the foot by taking private flights.” Typical of the "do as I say not as I do" elite crowd. Harry wanted to leave the Royals because he wanted a normal life. And this is normal??
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Sept 29, 2021 11:47:27 GMT 10
Kate was looking rather spiffy at the 007 premiere ...
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Sept 29, 2021 13:10:23 GMT 10
Lovely dress! I think Kate's taking on Meghan in the glamour stakes! But on the other hand, they also want to project their family image. So whilst the Sussexes take Manhattan - along with their videographer to record every excruciatingly contrived instant of their "royal tour" - here's William and Kate and the kids having a good 'ol pub lunch down in Norfolk. No security but a Sun photographer just happens to pop up, lol. Looks like they're learning from their publicity obsessed inlaws. But good on them for giving the kids some normality as a family. It's something the security paranoid Sussexes will never be doing. And hamburgers? They would never pass the lips of the vegan Meghan.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 29, 2021 13:31:37 GMT 10
Ginger and Nutmeg are NOT Royals btw. They forfeited the job. They do not have HRH in front of their titles and do not represent Her Majesty in any way shape or form.
A seriously classless pair of grifters.
Charities in the USA only have to give 5% of their takings. They get to keep the other 95%, hence they'll never see a penny from me.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Sept 29, 2021 13:39:50 GMT 10
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are and have, a very beautiful family. So far so good.
I hope I live long enough to see him crowned.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Oct 11, 2021 12:25:35 GMT 10
Meanwhile, I notice that the British Police have dropped their investigation into Randy Andy. I smell a right Royal coverup. The good news is that William reportedly thinks Uncle Randy Andy is a threat to the Royal Family ... perhaps when he becomes King, Andy will be sent further into the background. One can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 11, 2021 15:05:55 GMT 10
There is no cover-up Giuffre was a 17 yr old prostitute who got paid to root older guys. The age of consent in New York is 17.
Giuffre had lived with 2 men over the same time she was whoring her arse out. She is no victim by her own admissions.
Andrew doesn't even remember her. He has no charges to face.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Oct 11, 2021 15:45:41 GMT 10
There is no cover-up Giuffre was a 17 yr old prostitute who got paid to root older guys. The age of consent in New York is 17. Giuffre had lived with 2 men over the same time she was whoring her arse out. She is no victim by her own admissions. Andrew doesn't even remember her. He has no charges to face. Maybe technically Randy Andy has an out ... but I still reckon he is a creep.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 11, 2021 16:02:21 GMT 10
There is no cover-up Giuffre was a 17 yr old prostitute who got paid to root older guys. The age of consent in New York is 17. Giuffre had lived with 2 men over the same time she was whoring her arse out. She is no victim by her own admissions. Andrew doesn't even remember her. He has no charges to face. Maybe technically Randy Andy has an out ... but I still reckon he is a creep. So is Giuffre. The Royalty hating press are really doing a number on this one. I watch every one of Lady C vids so I get the truth about what is going on. She condemns Andrew if he did seek out a young pro because of the age gap and it's horrifying. She does not condemn paid call girls but then she goes on about what Giuffre has already said/admitted to in court showing what a HUGE liar she is. A female journalist is behind all this. Lady C says the only one benefiting is the anti royal journalist on the left wing tab.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 13, 2021 20:35:50 GMT 10
There is no cover-up Giuffre was a 17 yr old prostitute who got paid to root older guys. The age of consent in New York is 17. Giuffre had lived with 2 men over the same time she was whoring her arse out. She is no victim by her own admissions. Andrew doesn't even remember her. He has no charges to face. Maybe technically Randy Andy has an out ... but I still reckon he is a creep. Gort, long video but all the truth about Giuffre. Skip first 8 minutes but do yourself a favour and learn about Mrs Giuffre.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 13, 2021 23:05:29 GMT 10
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands … Dutch princess could marry a same-sex partner and keep throne, PM saysBy Sammy Westfall October 13, 2021 www.smh.com.au/world/europe/dutch-princess-could-marry-same-sex-partner-and-keep-throne-pm-says-20211013-p58zm0.htmlThe Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage 20 years ago. But for the Dutch royal family, the rules were different: The government held that if an heir wanted to marry someone of the same sex, they would have to forfeit their right to the throne. That position changed on Tuesday when Prime Minister Mark Rutte said that the Dutch princess, 17-year-old Catharina-Amalia Beatrix Carmen Victoria, could marry someone of any gender without fear of relinquishing the crown. Netherlands’ Princess Amalia, who turns 18 in December. The change in the law relating to the NL royal succession doesn’t mean that the young woman is therefore gayThe new stance is a clear break from the traditions of other royal families around the globe, including those that have avoided addressing the issue or disapprove of the practice outright. In the Netherlands, Parliament must approve royal engagements. But Rutte, a longtime proponent of LGBTQ rights both at home and in Europe, said that times have changed since the issue was last addressed in 2000. “The cabinet ... does not see that an heir to the throne or the King should abdicate if he/she would like to marry a partner of the same sex,” Rutte wrote in a letter to Parliament on Tuesday. He said that the position applies to all heirs of the throne, not just Princess Amalia, who has not commented publicly. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte outlined the government’s new stance on royal succession.His own party had asked Rutte to clarify the government’s stance after questions were raised about royal succession and same-sex marriage in a book published over the summer. Little is known about the personal life of the princess, who is next in line for the throne. Previously, some Dutch royals abandoned their place in the line of succession to marry someone without “parliamentary consent”. The logistics of succession are still “frightfully complicated,” Rutte said. “Let’s cross that bridge if we come to it,” he told Dutch TV, the BBC reported. Over the years, in other places, royal heirs have hidden their sexuality. Some were outed without their consent while others took their secret to the grave. Spanish Duchess Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo married a younger woman on her deathbed in 2008, listing her new spouse on the will and cutting her children out of her inheritance. In India, Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, a royal figure in India, came out in 2006, some people burned effigies in his hometown, Rajpipla. His mother tried to disown him, and he received death threats, The New York Times reported. A third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II became the first openly gay member of the British royal family when he came out in 2016. Lord Ivar Mountbatten, 58, later married his partner in the monarchy’s first same-sex wedding.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 13, 2021 23:30:58 GMT 10
Well I guess if you can't get rid of the monarchy then stopping them breeding is the next best thing.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 14, 2021 0:01:00 GMT 10
That’s one way of looking at it ….
But I dunno Toots, the argument against the monarchy in Australia is all based on notions of Australian nativism, not about the pro’s and cons of constitutional monarchy per se and the Australian people gave their answer in a landslide result in 1999. The nativist argument won’t get republicans anywhere. They’ll have to do better than that and they haven’t because they can’t. On the issue of the intrinsic value of the monarchy, to my mind the spectacle of the Trump presidency has arguably been the best thing to happen to constitutional monarchy since the American war of independence. If a Jeffersonian republic can throw up a buffoon and dangerous boofhead like Trump then congratulations Mr ex-president you made the British monarchy look good by comparison with your shambolic administration.
Regarding a constitutional monarch having a same sex partner, I don’t see why that should cause any issues regarding the royal succession. Queen Elizabeth 1 died childless in 1603 and her first cousin got the royal gig. A hundred and eleven years later his descendant Queen Ann died childless which ended the Stuart dynasty and gave the British parliament a historic opportunity to pass over no fewer than 50 people with blood links to the Stuart family, no matter how many times removed, and settle the royal succession on a German princeling whose link to the throne was that he was descended from King James 1’s sister or daughter (I forget which) who had been married off to a German noble family a hundred years previously. The guy couldn’t even speak English. Nevertheless he became King George 1 and started the royal line that the Queen belongs to.
In relation to the Dutch princess, she will be Queen. She is the “kroonprinses” or crown princess. If she has children of her own then the succession will pass to the eldest. But if she bats for her own gender and doesn’t have kids then that won’t be a problem. The monarchy is safe in the Netherlands. There’s no strong republican movement there. Oranje boven!
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 14, 2021 0:47:09 GMT 10
Princess Amalia is a stunning beauty. I hope she marries well.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Oct 14, 2021 4:52:17 GMT 10
Heir apparent soon to be King of England and head of Aussieland Prince Charles will be a good thing if the coalition remain in power he would be telling them fucknuts to pull their fingers out on climate change...as per usual its the States and industry doing all the heavy lifting on that topic.
Obviously for then sake of the country the rorting federal conservatives have to go.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 14, 2021 5:59:36 GMT 10
Princess Amalia is a stunning beauty. I hope she marries well. She takes after her mum, Queen Maxima who is originally from Argentina. In a story that’s pretty similar to the story of the Australian Princess Mary meeting the Danish prince Frederick in Sydney, Maxima was working as a banker in New York when she met the then Prince (or “kroonprins” as he was as heir to the throne) Willem-Alexander. She scrubs up well as a royal. “Koningin” means “queen”, “koning” means “king”
|
|