Royal Gossip
November 24, 2017, 04:27:38 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Commonwealth Relationship With The British Monarchy  (Read 25640 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2011, 06:32:53 am »

It's been a part of their downfall generally, I suppose, but it's not the case in Australia. I can only speak as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, but Australians just don't want the monarchy. We want to be independent and have an Australian as Head of State. Most Australians consider the monarchy archaic and against our values, including meritocracy.

We are honestly quite a crude lot and certainly don't subscribe to the feudal class system. Further, maintaining the monarchy strikes at our inferiority complex of being a former penal colony, as under British rule. Most Australians really revile at that notion, not to mention that, being a multicultural nation, it's increasingly not something with which many Australians identity these days (British descendancy).

That is why the BRF doesn't tour here - they are just not wanted. William's brief visits of late, and Anne's one brief visit, are about as much as we are going to get. It's also about as much as the Australian taxpayers will tolerate. And, our current Gvt is firmly republican by policy.

The Queen is coming for CHOGM this year, but not a "royal tour" without a distinct reason.

One of the proponents for keeping the monarchy is exactly that: the Queen only comes when invited.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36262


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2011, 08:44:25 am »

Quote
We are honestly quite a crude lot


Well, people say that about Americans too and frankly we have no problems with it.

Quote
That is why the BRF doesn't tour here - they are just not wanted.

I used to think that it was a pointless hostility, but after all I've seen and been disillusioned by, I don't blame you Aussies for being sick of the RF. It can be an albatross to expect to have to defer to a leader that is so distant and shares nothing in common with the culture of their supposed dominion.

Quote
One of the proponents for keeping the monarchy is exactly that: the Queen only comes when invited.


Which is standard diplomatic protocol for any official visit by anyone, nothing unique. There is now nothing unique about the British monarchy anymore that makes it worth being associated with in any respect.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2011, 09:10:24 am »

Thanks for the support, KF.  thankyou

I don't think Americans have quite the reputation of being as blunt and crude as we Aussies. Most Americans I know are shocked by us, and I lived there for a bit. easter-wink It stems from our craving to be our own people, an overshoot, if you will; kind of "rebellion", IMO.

To clarify: my friends and I found Americans gracious and very well-mannered, particularly the men. Ok, maybe not New Yorkers so much.  tehe  easter-wink Australians, on the other hand, are generally fun, open, welcoming, unpretentious, easy-going and enjoy humour, but 'gracious and well-mannered'?  easter-think  I think not!  tehe

I doubt people like the Midds would be welcomed in Oz, if people knew their background, as far as has been presented by the media.  hall-whistle Even "Our Mary" has been vilified as being a social climber and gold-digger.  Shocked

Regarding the Queen's visits, the 'standard diplomatic protocol' does not apply to HM. She is our Head of State and does not need "permission" to visit us if she should wish to so act. However, being the gracious leader that she is, sensitive to our desire for independence and republican leanings, she does not interfere with us, nor out-wear her welcome. The same cannot be said for her grandson and heir, according to law.  X-Mas_rolleyes
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 09:18:13 am by June » Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2279



« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2011, 11:55:29 pm »

The Queen will be welcome when she comes but most Aussies won't even notice the visit.  The died in the wool monarchists will rejoice of course but that will be all.  As Mary is to make an official visit as well this year it will be interesting to see who gets the most attention - our Head of State or our real true Aussie born Princess and future Queen of another country.

I find it interesting that the last time Charles came here was in 2005 and who else made an official tour at about the same time - Mary and Frederick - and they drew larger crowds then Charles.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this government though try to put a republican plebiscite on at the same time as the next election - simple question 'Do you think Australia should be a republic?' - if it is a 'No' answer than the question can go away for 50 or so years but if it is a 'Yes' vote then it will force the new government to deal with the issue.

NB  A plebiscite is a vote to find out the opinion of the public but isn't binding on the government but the government would be foolish to go against that vote.  A referendum is a binding vote and changes the constitution.   It is Labor Party policy to hold a plebiscite at some time in the future - but even a yes vote wouldn't force any action if the government didn't want to act.

Most Australias have little if any time for Charles believing the Diana spin rather than Charles' own words - I have never understood why Diana's words are more believable then Charles' (although I have some friends who have simply said that they believe Diana because she was so pretty).  William is also popular as Diana's son but Charles - no way.  How Aussies will react to Kate - we will have to wait and see but I expect that she will be popular here until or unless she does something to make people not like her.  Aussies tend to give people a 'fair go' and they will give her a 'fair go' - and she gets an extra long pass as William's wife.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2011, 04:33:52 am »

Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill?  easter-think It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum". Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like. So, that's not even up for debate.  hall-Spell-check The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.

The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.  

I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).

The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

edited to remove the accusations another poster is a troll

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:45:59 pm by mousiekins » Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36262


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2011, 04:51:16 am »

If you don't mind my saying June, the other countries sound tired of hte constant drama surrounding the RF; when the monarchy is dragged through the mud, it drags the Commonwealth through the mud as well. Australia doesn't benefit, the other countries haven't had as raised a profile, plus they aren't at all paid attention too. How many receptions are held at the Palace for the various countries? How many times are Commonwealth countries (other than Australia) are a high priority to keep around? The Commonwealth countries look to be just a feather in the cap of the monarchy, not countries they actually care about.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2011, 05:18:15 am »

Oh, they care alright, KF.  easter-wink

Australia has special significance over other Commonwealth countries by reason that we only exist by virtue of British convicts. We derived from a penal colony.  easter-wink

This is not bias, it's just fact. Our flag still carries the British Union Jack in its corner. Having said that, the BRF is well aware of republican majority in Oz. The Queen has gone on record about this. This is no doubt why countries like Canada and NZ get more royal tours than us - and lengthier ones. Ours are informal (William, solo) or very brief so as to be insignificant (Charles, Anne and even HM).

The BRF cares about other countries because it's a part of the old British empire and rule - a status symbol. If any of the members become republics, it will shake up UK taxpayers and many will think: why not us? Why do we have to keep paying for these layabouts? What value do they add?

See, if Commonwealth countries ditch the monarchy, then the tourism excuse for keeping the BRF around will lack merit. So, what's left? Historical significance? Familiarity? People can still visit the publicly owned castles and palaces, so I don't think it will be enough long-term. But granted, it will still take a lot for Australia to become a republic. No Gvt has had the guts to call a referendum. It won't happen until HM dies anyway.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2279



« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2011, 05:56:51 am »

Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

I got my wording that it is an 'official visit' from the following website:  http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3703&Itemid=8

which says - They will visit Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, from November 19 to November 26, their first official visit to Australia as a couple since 2005.

"We are very proud of our ties to Denmark,"the Prime Minister’s spokesman announced."Their visit is a sign of the strength of the friendship between our two nations.

"They will lead a business delegation focused on green energy, sustainable living and food technologies.

"This delegation will provide an opportunity to enhance trade and business ties between our two countries in this important area," he added.

As this website is the site of Australians for a Constititutional Monarchy - I would assume that they know the differenc between a private and an official visit.

As for the lack of press - have you seen the women's magazines this year - she is a regular on the covers -as is Kate - and they sell out quickly.





Quote
Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

Actually as the representative of the Head of State of a sovereign nation Mary and her husband has every right to make an official visit - just as the President of the US will be making an official visit this year as well - it is what Heads of State do - make official visits to other countries and if they can't do so they send representatives - so Denmark is sending their Crown Prince and his wife to make an official tour - knowing that Australians are more likely to respond to Mary than to her mother-in-law.

Quote
But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill?  easter-think It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

You have actually stated the reason in your question - she is the future Queen of Denmark - a country with which Australia in on good terms, a trading partner and one that we would like to continue having good relations with.  As the wife of the heir to that throne alone she will be accorded the respect due to that position and that will be paid for by the Australian taxpayers.  It is not unacceptable under out Constitution - no where in the constitution does it say that we aren't to have official visits paid for by us of Heads of State or their representatives - in fact no country would accept that as a rational argument - all countries receive official visits from Heads of State and their representatives and those visits are paid for by the country being visited.

Quote
It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.
 

Charles is the heir being King of Australia but even so he didn't draw anywhere near the crowds that Mary did.  He wouldn't draw them now either but William will.

Quote
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum".
 They are different words for a reason - one is to change the constitution and the other is to find out the views of the people.  http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/rudd-should-move-a-republic-plebiscite-2010-greens  The Greens (an pro-republican party if ever there was one) made this comment - note the use of the word 'plebiscite' not 'referendum' for the question 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?'  The 2020 Summit held by the Rudd government recommended a plebiscite on this issue to be held in 2010 - it wasn't of course.

Here we even have the use of both words on the issue http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-02/rudd-under-pressure-to-hold-republic-plebiscite/254938

"Holding a plebiscite doesn't commit the Government to holding a referendum at any particular time. It is an important preparatory step.

This is where I get my information - the government, a dictionary, my lectures at university and the textbooks I use to teach Australian history to students -



Quote
Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like.

Which is why Rudd suggested a plebiscite in the first place - to simply find out the views of the people - he actually said in the 2007 campaign that he would hold such a plebiscite in his second term (which he didn't get) and then a series more plebiscites to find the model that would get the required support before putting that to a binding referendum.

Quote
The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.
 

I don't understand why you have brought this into your diatribe - unless you are trying to explain something rather badly.  

At the last election Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax but we are about to get the most expensive in the world because she has to do what her masters, the Greens tell her to do.

Quote
The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.  

Of course which is why the Malaysian solution was stopped in the High Court - because it meant denying the refugees Human Rights and we are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -  and we are also signatories to the agreements on the treatment of refugess, which Malaysia isn't and so the government can't overturn international agreements that have been signed by earlier governments and the High Court rightly overturned Gillard's Malaysian solution.

Quote
I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).
 

The people that I come into contact with think William and Kate are wonderful and will welcome a visit by them - but the Queen is ho-hum.  My comment here was based on the people I meet, discuss this issue with etc - your experience is obviously different - I can respect that.

Quote
The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

Actually is is a huge part of the Australian culture to give everyone a 'fair go' - it is part of the vernacular of this great land and a concept on which we price ourselves - that everyone is given a 'fair go' regardless of background, race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.

I would *despise* to live in Australia if that aspect of our character was ever lost - and I pity any Australia who has already lost that element of being an Aussie (such as yourself)

Quote
edited as the quote has been removed

Pick your battles.

I am an Aussie (7th generation actually).  I do have a clue with a Masters Degree in History from Macquarie University and teach Australian History, along with other history of course.

From what you have written I think you need to do some basic research and even some study about what you are talking about rather than tell people here rubbish and have them lap it up.

There are 20 million+ Aussies.  Not all think as you do.  I don't for one.  I think you might be a bit miffed that there is another Aussie on here who is prepared to call some of what you say rubbish or who would like to try to put a different perspective on things - to show that we do have people who think about things differently to you.

I am a republican because I believe that Australia should have a Head of State who is able to represent this country and this country alone and one of the things that changed me from being a monarchist was William actively campaigning against Australia for the 2018 and 2011 World Cups in South Africa last year.  After that World Cup of course England decided to campaign only for the 2018 cup and Australia for 2022 but until the SA World Cup William was clearly anti-Australian.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:47:35 pm by mousiekins » Logged
Yooper
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11112


Moderator


« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2011, 06:10:21 am »

June?   What do you need from me, an entire USA citizen, who has no biz interfering at all except to say that we *despise* this?huh?!!!!!
Logged


\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\"  Thomas Jefferson
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2011, 06:21:43 am »

Mary is not making an 'official visit' at all in the sense that taxpayers won't be funding it. Her visit is connected with a charity, by whom she will be paid expenses. It's nice that you are a Mary fan, but Mary is not the draw card she once was (the evidence is the distinct lack of press and that most Australians don't know she exists on a day-to-day basis).

I got my wording that it is an 'official visit' from the following website:  http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3703&Itemid=8

which says - They will visit Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, from November 19 to November 26, their first official visit to Australia as a couple since 2005.

"We are very proud of our ties to Denmark,"the Prime Minister’s spokesman announced."Their visit is a sign of the strength of the friendship between our two nations.

"They will lead a business delegation focused on green energy, sustainable living and food technologies.

"This delegation will provide an opportunity to enhance trade and business ties between our two countries in this important area," he added.

As this website is the site of Australians for a Constititutional Monarchy - I would assume that they know the differenc between a private and an official visit.

As for the lack of press - have you seen the women's magazines this year - she is a regular on the covers -as is Kate - and they sell out quickly.





Quote
Mary was a novelty, girl-of-the-moment, but that is now over. I grant you, she had her 5 minutes of fame in this country, but that won't mean that taxpayers will accept to continue to pay for official trips. She's had ONE official trip, as a courtesy for relations between Denmark and Australia. It would have been rude to not invite Mary under the circumstances.

Mary has no business making official trips to Oz as our Head of State is the British monarch. It's that simple.

Actually as the representative of the Head of State of a sovereign nation Mary and her husband has every right to make an official visit - just as the President of the US will be making an official visit this year as well - it is what Heads of State do - make official visits to other countries and if they can't do so they send representatives - so Denmark is sending their Crown Prince and his wife to make an official tour - knowing that Australians are more likely to respond to Mary than to her mother-in-law.

Quote
But just on that: what official business do you think that CP Mary - future Queen of Denmark - has in Oz, such that Australian taxpayers should foot the bill?  easter-think It would be entirely unacceptable under the Constitution, just for starters.

You have actually stated the reason in your question - she is the future Queen of Denmark - a country with which Australia in on good terms, a trading partner and one that we would like to continue having good relations with.  As the wife of the heir to that throne alone she will be accorded the respect due to that position and that will be paid for by the Australian taxpayers.  It is not unacceptable under out Constitution - no where in the constitution does it say that we aren't to have official visits paid for by us of Heads of State or their representatives - in fact no country would accept that as a rational argument - all countries receive official visits from Heads of State and their representatives and those visits are paid for by the country being visited.

Quote
It's a bit misleading to say that Mary and Fred 'drew larger crowds' because that tour was a "homecoming tour' - a special event. It was an event to some that an "Aussie sheila" (no matter that she was no longer an Australian citizen and that her parents are Scottish) was to become Queen of an irrelevant, tiny European country.
 

Charles is the heir being King of Australia but even so he didn't draw anywhere near the crowds that Mary did.  He wouldn't draw them now either but William will.

Quote
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect. A 'plebiscite' is just a fancy word for "referendum".
 They are different words for a reason - one is to change the constitution and the other is to find out the views of the people.  http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/rudd-should-move-a-republic-plebiscite-2010-greens  The Greens (an pro-republican party if ever there was one) made this comment - note the use of the word 'plebiscite' not 'referendum' for the question 'Do you support Australia becoming a republic?'  The 2020 Summit held by the Rudd government recommended a plebiscite on this issue to be held in 2010 - it wasn't of course.

Here we even have the use of both words on the issue http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-02/rudd-under-pressure-to-hold-republic-plebiscite/254938

"Holding a plebiscite doesn't commit the Government to holding a referendum at any particular time. It is an important preparatory step.

This is where I get my information - the government, a dictionary, my lectures at university and the textbooks I use to teach Australian history to students -



Quote
Of course, changing the CONSTITUTION is a HUGE deal and the outcome must be binding. The Constitution cannot be changed without a referendum, because one thing our government cannot do is change it at whim. It's untouchable, if you like.

Which is why Rudd suggested a plebiscite in the first place - to simply find out the views of the people - he actually said in the 2007 campaign that he would hold such a plebiscite in his second term (which he didn't get) and then a series more plebiscites to find the model that would get the required support before putting that to a binding referendum.

Quote
The carbon tax policy is an entirely different matter: it's a policy issue and not normal practice, which is why it won't happen. The Gvt is voted by democratic practice and will decide on law and policy.
 

I don't understand why you have brought this into your diatribe - unless you are trying to explain something rather badly.  

At the last election Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax but we are about to get the most expensive in the world because she has to do what her masters, the Greens tell her to do.

Quote
The Constitution however is ABOVE government-made law and policy, naturally. In court, the Constitution can be used to override law, though it's difficult, because it must go to the High Court for interpretation. This is the main function of the High Court.  

Of course which is why the Malaysian solution was stopped in the High Court - because it meant denying the refugees Human Rights and we are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -  and we are also signatories to the agreements on the treatment of refugess, which Malaysia isn't and so the government can't overturn international agreements that have been signed by earlier governments and the High Court rightly overturned Gillard's Malaysian solution.

Quote
I disagree with your assessment of Kate. Firstly, by your own admission, only 'died in the wool monarchists will rejoice' at HM's visit. The reason for this is that Australians are over the monarchy; that includes William and Kate, ergo, the same holds true for them (with a few star-struck teenagers thrown into the mix).
 

The people that I come into contact with think William and Kate are wonderful and will welcome a visit by them - but the Queen is ho-hum.  My comment here was based on the people I meet, discuss this issue with etc - your experience is obviously different - I can respect that.

Quote
The only REGULAR Aussies who will give Kate a 'fair go' are the same ones who fawn over Mary. That is, people who read the women's magazines and day dream about life, fantasists, or those of whom are romantic royalists. The rest are the select few who want to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia, but that has nothing to do with sycophancy for foreign royals.

Actually is is a huge part of the Australian culture to give everyone a 'fair go' - it is part of the vernacular of this great land and a concept on which we price ourselves - that everyone is given a 'fair go' regardless of background, race, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.

I would *despise* to live in Australia if that aspect of our character was ever lost - and I pity any Australia who has already lost that element of being an Aussie (such as yourself)

Quote
edited as this part of the original post has been removed



Pick your battles.

I am an Aussie (7th generation actually).  I do have a clue with a Masters Degree in History from Macquarie University and teach Australian History, along with other history of course.

From what you have written I think you need to do some basic research and even some study about what you are talking about rather than tell people here rubbish and have them lap it up.

There are 20 million+ Aussies.  Not all think as you do.  I don't for one.  I think you might be a bit miffed that there is another Aussie on here who is prepared to call some of what you say rubbish or who would like to try to put a different perspective on things - to show that we do have people who think about things differently to you.

I am a republican because I believe that Australia should have a Head of State who is able to represent this country and this country alone and one of the things that changed me from being a monarchist was William actively campaigning against Australia for the 2018 and 2011 World Cups in South Africa last year.  After that World Cup of course England decided to campaign only for the 2018 cup and Australia for 2022 but until the SA World Cup William was clearly anti-Australian.

easter-lol laugh lols rofl tehe

Good show, but I don't get my information from Google.  easter-wink Believe me, I know from whereof I speak, and it isn't from Google, unlike you.

edited for accusing a poster of being a troll again

I'm not even going to bother responding, because that will just: a) waste my time; and b) feed you.

edited for personal attacks and calling a poster a troll again

Believe me, I welcome dissenting views, but only when they make sense.

Yooper: you are so kind, dear friend.  thankyou  BFF2
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:53:02 pm by mousiekins » Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2011, 06:32:40 am »

I'll stand corrected regarding Mary's tour, but that is only recent news. Initially, it was stated that it would be a "private" visit, with some charity work. But just because Gillard bangs on about it, doesn't mean Australian taxpayers are happy about it. I do find this very odd and I suspect it is to try to press the carbon tax through.

In any event, that means the Cambridges have been turned down.  hall-whistle

The High Court cannot dictate to the Australian Govt at all.  thumbsdown The Gvt still rules this country, not the High Court, even if I disagree with that notion. Parliament-made laws still override everything except the Constitution. All the Gvt needs to do is amend its legislation. It does this ALL THE TIME in order to get its way.

Still presenting opinions as fact, I see.  X-Mas_rolleyes

And, where do I get MY information from? Postgraduate tax law study and working in law at the highest level.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 06:38:19 am by June » Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2011, 06:42:49 am »

Re Kate: I don't care to give her a 'fair go' because she's lazy and is the antithesis of what we Aussies stand for: meritocracy. And, she's British, and privileged. Australia doesn't subscribe to feudal class systems. Kate is a snob, from a family fixated on class (hence her posh schools), end of story.

How does that accord with Australian values?

I'm a proud Australian, thanks, so don't you dare attack me about my allegiance to my country because I don't believe in your fairy tale view of things.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2011, 07:22:44 am »

Yes, republican Gillard is using Mary to get her carbon tax through, so everything else still stands, ceteris paribus. She used Cate Blanchett too, but that failed, as will this stunt. The taxpayers won't forget it in a hurry. Already, there exists a lot of disquiet over this unnecessary tour. I recall also that the global conference on climate change was held in Copenhagen with the CP couple hosting international guests. Bingo!

Re the High Court: if you are going to spew nonsense about it, as if you know, you should get your facts straight. We do not have a Bill/Charter of Rights in Oz - our laws cannot be contested. That is why many learned people have been frustrated in this country. The High Court only has so much power in so far as the justices can interpret the laws. When the High Court holds something the Gvt doesn't like, it changes the law to close it up. That is also why we have whta is known as "black letter lawyers" and those who delve further.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 07:26:36 am by June » Logged
Yooper
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11112


Moderator


« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 07:58:05 am »

There is no way I'm as knowledgable as you m'dear, but I am pretty swift on one thing.  Relax. edited for referencing trolls

They're not worth it, ever.

The real deal and I'll take ya on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cHDw_fFLw0



« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:54:19 pm by mousiekins » Logged


\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\"  Thomas Jefferson
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2279



« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 08:45:29 am »

edited for use of troll

Have you ever considered that June mightn't know everything about Australia.

I came to this board in good faith and have been attacked for daring to say something different that one poster about how I see things in Australia.

Sorry but this isn't the say to treat a new comer.

I notice that June criticised me for providing links on the internet to support my point of view but that June didn't give any evidence to support her opinion - not the sort of actions I would expect from a person who wishes to refute a comment.

I provided links so that people, like you who claim to be less knowledgeable about Australia could actually see what is said here about things but you choose to believe the words of the person who has not provided any evidence.

June as you are so critical of my use of google to provide links please provide a list a reliable sources in verifiable books and journals that can be found in respectable university libraries - about 5 or so books and journal articles by respectable and renowned jurists that support your viewpoint would be nice - in other words put your money where your mouth is.  You say I am wrong but have given me no sources to go to to check your argument whereas I was able to very quickly show the types of sources that are saying what I said.  Please do so - because if you do do so and I am wrong I will inform the NSW government that what we are teaching students in Year 9 History about our constitution is wrong and come here and admit it - afterall I am only a poorly educated teacher - I only have a Masters degree in History (along with other degrees and diplomas but that was the last one I attained), grew up with a lawyer for a father, have been raised in this country and have an opinion that differs from you.

This board obviously doesn't actually want any discussion - all it wants to do is to trash new comers and make them feel unwelcome.

I was told, on other royal boards that this board was full of vicious people but in the months of lurking here I hadn't seen much evidence so when my registration was approved I was delighted to come here and join in - and if you think that you attacks will drive me away - you are mistaken - I know my stuff to a certain extent and am willing to learn but I also don't like to see incorrect information put out as facts.

I provide links to the internet to show evidence.  June please do the same - provide evidence that you are right and I am wrong - as a teacher that it what I do - challenge my students to produce the evicence to support their point of view - you haven't done so.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:55:25 pm by mousiekins » Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 09:11:31 am »

edited

The reason I don't rely on links from google is that I actually know what I'm talking about. It's in my head, as I know. That's what learned, intelligent people do. They don't just rely on "text". I give speeches like that also, even if I prepare beforehand.

That's why I don't waste time with unnecessary links, unless I'm trying to put forth an opinion. But what I'm stating re High Court etc is fact, whether you like it or not. I could give you myriad examples, but why should I waste my time? It's off-topic anyway.

Opinions about CP Mary are another matter, but it is obvious that those posts are my opinion only. Of course I'm not privy to what the Gvt of the day will do and I don't pretend that I do.

But when you start about the High Court, or matters of politics, that is my business, and I'll call you out when you sprout arrant nonsense.

Now, if you had come on here with less antagonistic views, expressed as your opinion, and not targeted me or my knowledge of Australian politics and law, you would have had my support. But you didn't do that.

I don't have the time you clearly do, so I'm not going to respond any longer.

And frankly, what your father does for a living is irrelevant. I can think of one example of one, if not the finest lawyer this country has ever produced who does not come from a legal background. But thank you for sharing your own background.

And, why are you making this personal by stating that 'June mightn't know everything about Australia'. You sound bitterly jealous, perhaps a stalker. So here is another name: unhinged. Don't even attempt to stalk me as that will be your downfall.  

edited post to remove references to trolls. Please do not throw accusations around
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:34:05 pm by mousiekins » Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2279



« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2011, 09:55:35 am »

edited

I am sorry you feel that I was attacking you because of my post.  That was never my intention.  I have said that a number of times.

If I am wrong on my understanding about the High Court please set me straight as I am teaching what I am teaching to kids and if I am teaching them incorrectly then the NSW government needs to be set straight so that more kids aren't taught the wrong thing.  I am teaching what the NSW government in its History curriculum tells us to teach - and it agrees with what I was taught at school and in my study of 'The Coming of Federation' in third year at uni as a history course.

Of course anyone can say that they 'know' it and that they don't have to google it.  That is fine but a good lawyer, like a good historian (and I claim to be the latter - good mind you, not great, not outstanding, not excellent - just good) knows that they have to produce evidence to support their arguments.  You have failed to do so - no evidence - just sprouting - believe me because I am right.

I have tried to apologise for appearing to attack you in my initial post - but you have refused the offered olive branch.  

edited

changed due to edit of another post

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 11:36:32 pm by mousiekins » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14120



« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2011, 04:54:24 pm »

Royals' popularity a setback for republic, UK reports say

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/royals-popularity-a-setback-for-republic-uk-reports-say-20111226-1pagi.html#ixzz1hf18ATmP
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36262


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2011, 05:19:24 pm »

The monarchy is popular, but that does not mean that there is any long term success that will withstand yet another drop in popularity.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14120



« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2012, 01:47:28 pm »

Robert Jobson ‏ @theroyaleditor  Reply  Retweet  Favorite · Open
#royal Jamaica’s PM confirms she wants to sever country's ties with monarchy and wants ballot on full independence this year. .


Robert Jobson ‏ @theroyaleditor Close
#royal Jamaican PM Simpson Miller says referendum to scrap Queen could take place this year on 50th year of independence from British rule.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!