UK The Queen

[Gethelred]

This thread is actively moderated, let's behave like adults, shall we?

For conversation on an Australian Republic:

Who wants a Republic?

I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[chickenonachain]

David Beckham queued for 13hours
No fast pass for him

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/david-beckham-joins-queue-to-see-queen/news-story/c4ba016d3b2b65c244a447357431c223

Good on him for paying his respects

 

[Gough]

Still won't get a knighthood.

 

[chickenonachain]

Another thing if channel seven keep repeating the film clip of her children standing vigil around their mothers coffin I’m going to throw a brick at the tv been watching for one hour must have been on a least 12 times.

 

[footyfan1978]

I dont imagine it would be that unusual, especially if you go back just 1 century. Most people probably wouldn't travel far from their local area so it would be inevitable that closely related people would populate. This would also explain redheads.

Sources mate, sources, specific.....
Love seeing the actual family trees, specifically.

 

[footyfan1978]

I not been watching. Has she been buried yet or risen from the dead?

 

[footyfan1978]

I just found out the Queen’s husband was her cousin.

You're s**t at family trees.
Tipping he more distant than that.

 

[Chief]

You're s**t at family trees.
Tipping he more distant than that.

Is this the level you're sticking with? It's pretty boring.

 

[carltonchelsea]

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Nothing the Crown of the United Kingdom agrees to in that country, has any effect in Australia. And vice-versa.

That is legally enshrined in the 1931 Statute of Westminster and later the Australia Acts 1986 which severed the last legal ties between the British Crown and Australia.

The Statute recognised:

• the formal equalness and separateness of the British Crown and the Australian Crown.
• that any alteration to laws regarding the Succession to the Throne or the monarch's Royal Style and Titles needed the assent of the Australian parliament to be valid in that country. This includes the abdication of any monarch.
• that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative authority over the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
• laws made by the Parliament of Australia which were repugnant to British laws were no longer invalid.

There are no crowns on this land, pure mumbo jumbo written by white men for white men.

 

[carltonchelsea]

If you have any specfic point/s regarding the related comments I've posted in this thread feel free to make them..?

Clearly lost on you.

Lol the day she posts anything other than abuse will be the first.

Go home mate, you’re not welcome here!

 

[Festerz]

 

[footyfan1978]

Is this the level you're sticking with? It's pretty boring.

?

 

[Roylion]

There are no crowns on this land, pure mumbo jumbo written by white men for white men.

Bit like the Australian Constitution?

 

[The Passenger]

I'm surprised at how much people are surprised at the inbreeding in the royal family. I thought it was common knowledge Not that long ago it was pretty common in general society but I assume was a lot to do with the fact people didn't travel like now. The opportunity for a peasant to mate with an outside community was severely limited so naturally you had to look inward.

But within the European aristocracy inbreeding was a different mindset. It was essential. Can't let the blood of commoners into our chain of blueblood. Maybe not always first cousins (though not unheard of) but a good looking third or fourth cousin was prime meat on the sexy royals cuisine blackboard.

Charles 2 of Spain had something like 9 double-ups going back five generations. Exact amount of inbreeding might be wrong but it's not far off. No wonder the poor campaigner ended up looking like this.

 

[Gough]

I'm surprised at how much people are surprised at the inbreeding in the royal family. Not that long ago it was pretty common in general society but I assume was a lot to do with the fact people didn't travel like now. The opportunity for a peasant to mate with an outside community was severely limited so naturally you had to look inward.

But within the European aristocracy inbreeding was a different mindset. It was essential. Can't let the blood of commoners into our chain of blueblood. Maybe not always first cousins (though not unheard of) but a good looking third or fourth cousin was prime meat on the royalty * cuisine blackboard.

Charles 2 of Spain had something like 9 double-ups going back five generations. Exact amount of inbreeding might be wrong but it's not far off. No wonder he looked like this.

View attachment 1510272

There was still a fair bit of fuss made about Fergie being a commoner and that's living memory for a lot of us.

 

[Not Important]

The Palace Letters. Which is what I was referring to.



There is little doubt that Hocking is an historian with an agenda. She is of course on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement.



How is Kelly wrong?

As I said, Kelly is also the author of nine books on Australian politics and history. He was at Parliament House in Canberra on the day of the Dismissal and has written extensively on the Dismissal since that time, most recently in 2015.

His co-author on 'The Palace Letters' Troy Bramston has written books on Paul Keating, Robert Menzies, and on the Rudd-Gillard era. He's also interviewed most of the key players in the Dismissal and has made a number of significant archival discoveries about the event.

kelly is a hack journo. as i said, it's quality not quantity. one person is a renowned historian and academic with a proven record in that sphere. kelly is not. if u choose 2 believe him, knowing the tripe he writes in the australian, that's your choice. i go for proven researchers with a record of quality 2 back up their research.

 

[Roylion]

kelly is a hack journo. as i said, it's quality not quantity. one person is a renowned historian and academic with a proven record in that sphere.

Hocking may be a renowned historian but her supposed "bombshell" on the Palace Letters is underwhelming. She was convinced before the release of the letters that the Palace was implicated in the dismissal and was trying to look for any evidence from the letters that it was. She raised expectations beforehand about the “explosive” content of the letters. Even before they were released. Hardly the neutral, objective historian she professes to be. It's clear she has an agenda. She's on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement.

If you'd like to present her findings in detail on the Palace letters and the implications for the Palace and say why they are valid than an alternative view, then do so. I'm happy to discuss them in detail here.

kelly is not. if u choose 2 believe him, knowing the tripe he writes in the australian,

You accuse of him "tripe" but then fail to actually say what that "tripe" is. Disagreeing with him on matters he writes in the Austtalian doesn't mean he is wrong in the instance of the 'Palace Letters'. He's written four books on the Dismissal, the last two of them in collaboration with Bramston. He was at Parliament House as a reporter on the day of the dismissal, has interviewed most of the main players and is an undoubted authority on the subject.

As I said Bramston is also a prolific author and researcher.

i go for proven researchers with a record of quality 2 back up their research.

As I said Troy Bramston has written books on Paul Keating, Robert Menzies, and on the Rudd-Gillard era. He's also interviewed most of the key players in the Dismissal and has made a number of significant archival discoveries about the event.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Bit like the Australian Constitution?

Yes, that’s the point, colonial imperialist nonsense for white men only.
Our constitution is racist, any mention of the monarchy or crown should be eviscerated.

 

[Roylion]

any mention of the monarchy or crown should be eviscerated.

I have a different opinion to that.

 

[Not Important]

Hocking may be a renowned historian but her supposed "bombshell" on the Palace Letters is underwhelming. She was convinced before the release of the letters that the Palace was implicated in the dismissal and was trying to look for any evidence from the letters that it was. She raised expectations beforehand about the “explosive” content of the letters. Even before they were released. Hardly the neutral, objective historian she professes to be. It's clear she has an agenda. She's on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement.

If you'd like to present her findings in detail on the Palace letters and the implications for the Palace and say why they are valid than an alterantive view, then do so and I'm happy to discuss them in detail here,




You accuse of him "tripe" but then fail to actually say what that "tripe"is. Disagreeing with him on matters he writes in the Austtalian doesn't mean he is wrong in the isntance of the Palace Letters. He's written four books on the dismissal, the last two of them in collaboration with Bramston. He was at Parliament House as a reporter on the day of the dismissal, has interviewed most of the main players and is an undoubted authority on the subject.

As I said Bramston is also a prolific author and researcher.


As I said Troy Bramston has written books on Paul Keating, Robert Menzies, and on the Rudd-Gillard era. He's also interviewed most of the key players in the Dismissal and has made a number of significant archival discoveries about the event.

so, having eviscerated your 1st defence of kelly u move 2 bramston who has nothing like the authentication of hocking on this matter.

as 4 kelly and "tripe".

prof manne on kelly. and when the wheeler centre organised a face-2-face forum with manne and kelly, kelly failed 2 show.

Deconstructing Paul Kelly

Update: Since writing this, Paul Kelly has pulled out of the debate at the Wheeler Centre. The event is still going ahead.*

www.themonthly.com.au

 

[Roylion]

so, having eviscerated your 1st defence of kelly u move 2 bramston who has nothing like the authentication of hocking on this matter.

I've mentioned both Kelly and Bramston from the start.

Once again. Hocking's supposed "bombshell" on the Palace Letters is totally underwhelming. As I said she was convinced before the release of the letters that the Palace was implicated in the dismissal and was trying to look for any evidence from the letters that it was. She raised expectations even before they were released and then had to keep arguing for her pre-release claims when it wasnt as 'explosive' as she claimed. Hocking is on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement and it's very clear what her agenda is.

You've done nothing to refute any of that. The best you have is a criticism of Kelly in relation to his journalism. Anything to comment on Kelly's and Bramston's material on the Palace Letters?

 

[footyfan1978]

Someone post a link to the family tree at least back to just before Queen Victoria times.
Love to see such stuff on any family trees.

 

[MrBarry]

P.S. just read it's a 24 hour wait to see the coffin. That's psychopathic levels of subservience.

How do you mean?

Nobody is being forced to be there, the people who are there want to do it.

 

[The Passenger]

How do you mean?

Nobody is being forced to be there, the people who are there want to do it.

It would be less psychotic if they were forced.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How do you mean?

Nobody is being forced to be there, the people who are there want to do it.

They think they want to do it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Perhaps, behind the crown lies nothing at all

We lie to ourselves when we indulge in a mass hysteria proclaiming that at the centre there is something greater than ourselves. But perhaps a mass hysteria is exactly what is needed to make us continue to believe that eternal lie.

www.smh.com.au