Society/Culture The house of Windsor

[little graham]

On the advice of GG, should have been a time when she did intervene.
Drunken bastard.

What is the point you're trying to make? its a matter of public record what she and her gov did. You're pretending it didn't happen to make your point.

If you need to lie about history then perhaps you should go back to where you came from?

 

[Maggie5]

What is the point you're trying to make? its a matter of public record what she and her gov did. You're pretending it didn't happen to make your point.

If you need to lie about history then perhaps you should go back to where you came from?

I know my history, not rewriting. GG - her representative, makes representation to her and she rubber stamps.
Intervening is not to take recommendation and over ride what GG has put forth.
Where am I wrong?
Oh, and by the way, I daresay I have been here longer than you have.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I don't mind the Queen....She's harmless enough.

Charles, on the other hand, would be the perfect reason/excuse for the dissolution of the monarchy.

 

[Roylion]

Charles, on the other hand, would be the perfect reason/excuse for the dissolution of the monarchy.

Why's that?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why's that?

Complete tosser....And yes, it's founded upon personal prejudice & ignorance.

Any bloke who marries a bird who looks like his aunty, & says he wants to spend the rest of his life as her personal tampon, is not fit to run a raffle, never mind be a head of state....No wonder the Geelong Grammar lads flushed his head down the dunny.

 

[Roylion]

And yes, it's founded upon personal prejudice & ignorance.

No kidding.

Any bloke who marries a bird who looks like his aunty, & says he wants to spend the rest of his life as her personal tampon, is not fit to run a raffle, never mind be a head of state...

So marrying a woman that doesn't fit in with your perceived view of beauty or "hotness" means they're unfit to assume the role of head of state? And royalty isn't permitted to have private intimate conversations over the telephone like normal people? By doing so this also somehow makes any person who has indulged in this practice also unfit to be head of state? Are they allowed to have sex?

 

[Procrastinator35]

So royalty isn't permitted to have private intimate conversations over the telephone like normal people and by doing so this somehow makes them unfit to be head of state? Are they allowed to have sex?

Reckon my first premise surmised my stance well enough.

As to the above: Of course they are....But Charles is still a Squibb, & a mama's-boy of a toss-bucket.....Always was & always will be.

Having him as head of state would be an embarrassment; And like I said: The perfect timing for the dissolution of our Royal ties.

All Royalists should be praying that Lizzie out-lives him....She's already got Queen Victoria's record in the bag, so it's entirely possible.

 

[Roylion]

As to the above: Of course they are....But Charles is still a Squibb, & a mama's-boy of a toss-bucket.....Always was & always will be.

All I'm reading is quite a bit of ignorance about Charles. You do realise that he spent five years in the navy and air-force, training as a jet pilot and helicopter pilot, serving on the frigate HMS Jupiter and was part of the 845 Naval Air Squadron as a pilot on board the commando carrier HMS Hermes? He was given command of his own ship, the minehunter HMS Bronington, for the final ten months of his active service in the Royal Navy. He is also a fully trained member of the Parachute Regiment.

Having him as head of state would be an embarrassment; And like I said: The perfect timing for the dissolution of our Royal ties.

I think you might be underplaying how the monarchy will maintain its popularity. Once the Queen dies (her death and funeral will be a massive event that will rival or surpass that of Diana) there will a be a succession of royal events that will likely maintain the royal popularity. The coronation of Charles III (George VII) will be another huge event, the investiture of Prince William as Prince of Wales, the marriage of Harry (complete with title), more royal births and possibly other royal funerals will be royal events that will help keep the royals in the limelight.

 

[Procrastinator35]

All I'm reading is quite a bit of ignorance about Charles. You do realise that he spent five years in the navy and air-force, training as a jet pilot and helicopter pilot, serving on the frigate HMS Jupiter and was part of the 845 Naval Air Squadron as a pilot on board the commando carrier HMS Hermes? He was given command of his own ship, the mine hunter HMS Bronington, for the final ten months of his active service in the Royal Navy. He is also a fully trained member of the Parachute Regiment.

Yep....With all his leg-ups & privileges thrown in, he's hardly likely to fail now is he!

Lets not pretend he's done anything the hard way.

You're clearly a royalist & an astute one at that....Lets just agree that our estimation of Charles will remain poles apart.

 

[Roylion]

Yep....With all his leg-ups & privileges thrown in, he's hardly likely to fail now is he!

Charles had to earn his qualifications while on active service, the same as any other serviceman. Not too bad for a "Mama's boy", especially when compared with his youngest brother, Edward.

Lets not pretend he's done anything the hard way.

See above . Charles was treated the same as any other serviceman while on active duty.

Lets just agree that our estimation of Charles will remain poles apart.

It's just in your case, I'm yet to read any justifiable reason for your opinion. Something about a private telephone conversation and some lame comment that his wife wasn't hot enough for your tastes is all I've got so far.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Charles had to earn his qualifications while on active service, the same as any other serviceman. Not too bad for a "Mama's boy", especially when compared with his youngest brother, Edward.

See above . Charles was treated the same as any other serviceman while on active duty.

It's just in your case, I'm yet to read any justifiable reason for your opinion. Something about a private telephone conversation and some lame comment that his wife wasn't hot enough for your tastes is all I've got so far.

You're starting to sound like his very own PR man....But once again, my opening premise surmised my position....And it's one founded upon instinct & intuition from having seen & heard him speak on many occasions over the past 35 years.

 

[Roylion]

.And it's one founded upon instinct & intuition from having seen & heard him speak on many occasions over the past 35 years.

Like what specifically? He looks like a 67 year old man and has a British accent?

 

[Father Jack]

Being British should automatically disqualify him from being the Head of State of Australia, but instead it's actually a prerequisite. Go figure

 

[Procrastinator35]

Like what specifically? He looks like a 63 year old man and has a British accent?

No....Nothing to do with cultural stereotypes, his age or the plum in his mouth....Lizzie has all those things in spades.

Everything to do with how he comes across.

I'd call toss-pot every single time.

 

[EagleMan87]

See above . Charles was treated the same as any other serviceman while on active duty.

The royals will always be treated worse by the common soldier, and always be shown preferential treatment by their superiors. Hell, apart from a very small set, most upper-class generals have shown themselves to be detached, ignorant morons- and yet they have almost always been promoted ahead of genuinely talented soldiers.

Charles would never have been given command if it weren't for his connections. Sadly this is the case even when royalty isn't present, but you can't deny the fact that his rank wouldn't be as high if he were a commoner.

I understand the argument of why royal families are important; they are a talisman, something for us lesser beings to look up to and emulate, and usually nothing more.

 

[Roylion]

Charles would never have been given command if it weren't for his connections.

How do you know this? Like other junior commissioned officers, Charles passed the examination and began his career as a Sub- Lieutenant in the Royal Navy. This became the most junior commissioned rank and the only route to promotion to Lieutenant. He was promoted to Lieutenant by the end of his active service in the Royal Navy. Lieutenants can command ships where they are known as Lieutenant-Commanders.

Charles is not unintelligent. He graduated from Cambridge, the first heir apparent to earn a university degree so he'd be certainly capable of passing a Lieutenant's examination on his own merits, rather than it being gifted to him on his account of his "connections". He was also the first heir to the throne to sit public examinations.

 

[M Malice]

bloodline. that is the only reason this particular family is the royal family. i can not fathom how anybody can support such a system. i have zero opinion on the personalities involved in this current crop of royals, though there can be no argument they are born into a life of genetic acquired entitlements that is implied even if that comes subconsciously.
i am sure we are a mature and intelligent enough society to rid ourselves of this middle age system of subservience and replace it with a populace vote based elected system. for those who like the so called latent governmental and constitutional stability surely we can implement an elected "head of state" system that mirrors the genetic one we have now.

 

[Gough]

Charles talks to plants, I like that, it's time us hippys were running things.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

bloodline. that is the only reason this particular family is the royal family. i can not fathom how anybody can support such a system. i have zero opinion on the personalities involved in this current crop of royals, though there can be no argument they are born into a life of genetic acquired entitlements that is implied even if that comes subconsciously.
i am sure we are a mature and intelligent enough society to rid ourselves of this middle age system of subservience and replace it with a populace vote based elected system. for those who like the so called latent governmental and constitutional stability surely we can implement an elected "head of state" system that mirrors the genetic one we have now.

all that needs to happen is remove the Queen and have the GG retain all the powers and responsibilities the office has now, minus royal bullshit.
gee that was hard. country functions exactly the same, only difference we remove the union jack from our flag and an inbred english arshole gets removed from our coins.

 

[M Malice]

all that needs to happen is remove the Queen and have the GG retain all the powers and responsibilities the office has now, minus royal bullshit.
gee that was hard. country functions exactly the same, only difference we remove the union jack from our flag and an inbred english arshole gets removed from our coins.

that is what i thought, but have seen interviews with "constitutional experts" who say it can't happen that way, go figure!!! but we can land a man on the moon and map the human genome.

 

[Roylion]

bloodline. that is the only reason this particular family is the royal family. i can not fathom how anybody can support such a system. i have zero opinion on the personalities involved in this current crop of royals, though there can be no argument they are born into a life of genetic acquired entitlements that is implied even if that comes subconsciously.

Constitutional monarchies by their very nature are hereditary.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. The monarch reigns but does not rule. As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often comes from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

 

[M Malice]

Constitutional monarchies by their very nature are hereditary.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. The monarch reigns but does not rule. As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often comes from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

that is the counter argument i have read and heard many times. i have no real rebuttal for that other than my most recent post before this one. + maybe the referendum that would be required to remove the royal system could be framed as to limit our head of states powers?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

that is what i thought, but have seen interviews with "constitutional experts" who say it can't happen that way, go figure!!! but we can land a man on the moon and map the human genome.

well they are right, because the current constitution puts the Queen as head of state, we would need a constitutional amendment to make it work. of course we'd need to amend the constitution for any republic model to work, so its a bullshit defence. "constitutional experts" is simply a polite way of saying "monarchist" FFS capping the term limit of the GG gets rid of any of unfounded fears the monarchists have.

i wish we could have a population swap with the UK, people who want a monarchy get shipped back to the motherland they love so much and we get all the people with brains, fair trade everybody wins.

 

[Roylion]

that is the counter argument i have read and heard many times. i have no real rebuttal for that other than my most recent post before this one. + maybe the referendum that would be required to remove the royal system could be framed as to limit our head of states powers?

Regardless the office of a head of state that is elected becomes politicised. The Queen by virtue of the hereditary aspect is able to stand outside politics to fulfil her role which is to personify the nation and act as a constitutional "umpire" by application of the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). This is the system I would prefer Australia to have.

 

[Gough]

Constitutional monarchies by their very nature are hereditary.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. The monarch reigns but does not rule. As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often comes from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

I'm interested in how the divine right will be viewed after the death of Elizabeth II, and whether the well founded confidence in her will be transferred to Charles. It will be a fascinating time, and one new to almost everyone.