British Royal Family

 
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
Overall we have much more significant problems to worry about........
YM-Mundrabilla
For these things there’s never the right time Rolling Eyes Best chance to pull it off was the mid 80’s but getting our own national anthem was the best that could be achieved.

This country has always had the colonial disease bad. Until relatively recently, the Union Jack came out alongside ‘our’ 1900’s PC flag, and you weren’t taken seriously unless you mimicked a British accent. We still have too many people here that know more about Britain than Australia Surprised

Yes many people here will continue to obediently accept someone first born into a particular English family who must be Church of England as this country's head of state. Well at least until the Chinese go empire building.

Sponsored advertisement

  TheLoadedDog The Ghost of George Stephenson

God save the Queen.

The most experienced elder statesman (yes, I use the male term because it is correct) in modern times.  She's seen Prime Ministers and Presidents come and go.  And we have near a thousand years of stability (more or less).

The Duke is orrite too.  He's a product of his times.

When asked why I don't want a republic, I generally respond with "if we'd been a republic in 1983, we'd have elected Alan Bond as President." Take a moment for this to sink in.

To those who say, "We've got some fuddy duddy 16000km away as our head of state", I say "BRILLIANT!"  What could be more Aussie than that?  Arm's length - just let Australia be Australia without meddling.  And the Queen is incredibly apolitical.

And to those saying, "We don't need the Queen of England in charge", well newsflash - she's the Queen of Australia.  It is a different crown.

Exit stage right - - -
  M636C Minister for Railways

God save the Queen.

The most experienced elder statesman (yes, I use the male term because it is correct) in modern times.  She's seen Prime Ministers and Presidents come and go.  And we have near a thousand years of stability (more or less).

The Duke is orrite too.  He's a product of his times.

When asked why I don't want a republic, I generally respond with "if we'd been a republic in 1983, we'd have elected Alan Bond as President." Take a moment for this to sink in.

To those who say, "We've got some fuddy duddy 16000km away as our head of state", I say "BRILLIANT!"  What could be more Aussie than that?  Arm's length - just let Australia be Australia without meddling.  And the Queen is incredibly apolitical.

And to those saying, "We don't need the Queen of England in charge", well newsflash - she's the Queen of Australia.  It is a different crown.

Exit stage right - - -
TheLoadedDog™™

Many people are concerned that Charles will be less popular as King... (although even now I'm not holding my breath: Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to quote her maiden name, lived to 101, remember)

But practically, the British Royal Family come more or less for free... (except to the British taxpayer)

Any alternative must cost Australia more, and I for one don't want to pay for a president, his official residences and travel. I don't believe that it wouldn't cost a lot more than the Governor General, and I think that the sort of candidate we would get might not be as good as our Governor Generals have been (more or less).

Peter
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Who needs a Head of State anyway?  The Parliament runs the country by legislation and all that goes with it, and I fail to see why anybody else needs to sign bills into law once the two houses have passed them.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Who needs a Head of State anyway?  The Parliament runs the country by legislation and all that goes with it, and I fail to see why anybody else needs to sign bills into law once the two houses have passed them.
Valvegear

We need a circuit breaker in case the parliament doesnt function...
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
We need a circuit breaker in case the parliament doesnt function...
"james.au"
The High Court suits me.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Then you would have each branch appointing the other - checks and balances won't work there.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Then you would have each branch appointing the other
james.au
I wish I knew what on earth you mean. "Branch" of what?
The High Court consists of seven learned judges -  I'd rather have their opinions than that of one person.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Then you would have each branch appointing the other
I wish I knew what on earth you mean. "Branch" of what?
The High Court consists of seven learned judges -  I'd rather have their opinions than that of one person.
Valvegear

The executive, legislative and judiciary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_branches

Without the GG, the legislature would appoint the judiciary and vice versa.  Creates a loop that is too circular and could lead to the branches not acting appropriately as they fear their own position.  The addition of the 3rd power base with defined powers alters this potential Catch 22.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Has Australia's governor general (or the Queen for that matter) ever refused to sign a duly passed piece of legislation into law?
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Has Australia's governor general (or the Queen for that matter) ever refused to sign a duly passed piece of legislation into law?
Pressman
Not to my knowledge, but my question is would it lose anything if it didn't need the signature?

Without the GG, the legislature would appoint the judiciary and vice versa.
james.au
The "vice versa" is nonsense; the judiciary can't possibly appoint the legislature.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Has Australia's governor general (or the Queen for that matter) ever refused to sign a duly passed piece of legislation into law?
Not to my knowledge, but my question is would it lose anything if it didn't need the signature?

Valvegear
So they are just basically figureheads in the old monarchy system with the GG being the queen's local representative, effectively with stuff all power to do anything
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
The GG does have powers - Kerr proved that when he deliberately deceived his Prime Minister and dismissed his government. It's the only occasion in my lifetime when a Viceroy has done anything remotely dictatorial.
Some Governors General have been known to query things occasionally, but no more than that.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Has Australia's governor general (or the Queen for that matter) ever refused to sign a duly passed piece of legislation into law?
Pressman

I got looking at some early GGs and the third one did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Northcote,_1st_Baron_Northcote

In 1907 Northcote and Deakin had a falling out when the Governor-General, on instructions from London, declined to give his assent to a bill restricting appeals from the Australian courts to the Privy Council in London.


Id say that there could have been a few over time, but given potential historic controversies, perhaps less as time has gone on?
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
Many people are concerned that Charles will be less popular as King...
M636C

One thing that we can be reasonably certain of is that Charles III will not rule for anywhere near as long as his mother has... Wink
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Many people are concerned that Charles will be less popular as King...

One thing that we can be reasonably certain of is that Charles III will not rule for anywhere near as long as his mother has... Wink
Graham4405

Can we be certain that he will be Charles III though???  He could take another name Wink
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Many people are concerned that Charles will be less popular as King...

One thing that we can be reasonably certain of is that Charles III will not rule for anywhere near as long as his mother has... Wink

Can we be certain that he will be Charles III though???  He could take another name Wink
james.au
King Doofus I ?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Many people are concerned that Charles will be less popular as King...

One thing that we can be reasonably certain of is that Charles III will not rule for anywhere near as long as his mother has... Wink

Can we be certain that he will be Charles III though???  He could take another name Wink
King Doofus I ?
Pressman
Id say that is an option yes.  On the lower likelihoods of selection though id guess...
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Can we be certain that he will be Charles III though???  He could take another name Wink
james.au
Given that the previous two did not distinguish themselves in the role, that is a distinct possibility.

He would certainly not be the first to pick a different regnal name.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Given the fact that he has been heir to the throne for sixty-five and a half years, and has always been known as Charles, I really couldn't see him using any other name.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Given the fact that he has been heir to the throne for sixty-five and a half years, and has always been known as Charles, I really couldn't see him using any other name.
Valvegear
They can pick any name they like on coronation - it's a tradition akin to the Pope picking a name for themselves. It is likely that he will assume the name "Charles III" but as justapassenger rightly points out the previous two Charles heirs did not distinguish themselves on the throne so there's always a chance he might want to be known as something else.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
As people have said, former monarchs have adopted new names for their reignal title. Charles' maternal grandfather was Prince Albert, but he became King George VI. This is a widespread practice throughout the world, Ras (or Prince) Tafari of Ethiopia became Emperor Haile Selassie. Many years ago Charles was said to be flirting with the idea of becoming George VII rather than Charles III.

Then there is the name of the royal house, it was Saxe-Coburg-Gothe until it was changed to Windsor in World War I for obvious reasons. Charles' father is of course Prince Phillip of Greece and Charles is on record as saying that he would like to incorporate the anglicised version of his fathers surname in the name of his royal house, so it might be something like Mountbatten-Windsor.

Then there is the matter of religion, leaked plans for his coronation have revealed that he wants to be appointed "Defender of Faith", rather than Defender of THE Faith (i.e. Anglican Christianity). This makes sense as there are now far more religions in the UK than when his mum was crowned. On a more personal level, his paternal grandmother became an Orthodox nun and he was once caught crossing himself in the Orthodox manner rather than the Catholic or Protestant manner.

So when the son of "Phil the Greek" and "Betty Windsor" becomes king, don't be surprised if he changes his personal name, his surname and fudges on religion with the possibility that he discreetly is Orthodox rather than Anglican.
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Then there is the name of the royal house, it was Saxe-Coburg-Gothe until it was changed to Windsor in World War I for obvious reasons. Charles' father is of course Prince Phillip of Greece and Charles is on record as saying that he would like to incorporate the anglicised version of his fathers surname in the name of his royal house, so it might be something like Mountbatten-Windsor.
Bogong
Been Mountbatten-Windsor since 1960, well the Queen's descendants portion, as per the following seeming official website   https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
  mejhammers1 Deputy Commissioner

The Duke of Edinburgh is stepping down from official duties.

Unsure if that includes stepping down from being a racist d-head.
I've been contemplating that comment for the last few hours and wondering how to respond... so here goes...

I think that comment is quite unfair, maybe even gratuitously nasty.

Prince Philip is simply a product of his times. I once knew a number of old blokes born circa 1920 and like Prince Phillip they simply told things like they were. While what they said was never malicious, they weren't overly worried about precious people being offended, perhaps because there were no precious petals amongst people who'd lived through both the Great Depression and the Second World War. That generation were just tougher and more down to earth than more recent generations are.

I think I recall Prince Phillip saying he was amused by his nickname 'Phil the Greek', but how could he take offence as it was an accurate description of him, his name was Phil and his nationality was Greek before he married Elizabeth. Essentially, he is a hard working and amiable old bloke who simply belongs to a different time in history.
Bogong
While what they said was never malicious, they weren't overly worried about precious people being offended, perhaps because there were no precious petals amongst people who'd lived through both the Great Depression and the Second World War. That generation were just tougher and more down to earth than more recent generations are.

That remark just sounds like giving offensive jerks the licence to say what they like. I hope you are not referring to minorities who face discrimination on a regular occurrence. Yeah just like the Margaret Courts and the Andrew Bolts of this world who spew crap against minorities they disagree with but as soon as someone pushes back they whine about how their freedom of speech is being eroded. I think the younger generation is definitely stronger than us cosseted baby boomers.

As regards to Prince Philip he was a silly old duffer who suffered from foot and mouth disease. Hard working my foot!

Michael
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Mej-Michael. In that post many months ago I said I once knew a number of blokes born circa 1920. Sadly, but not surprisingly, none survive today. I also write and edit a fair bit of history, so I've had even more exposure to that generation in interviews I've conducted, or more recently listening to old recorded interviews of that generation.

That circa 1910 - 1925 generation was almost entirely free of the modern "sins" that most of us are guilty of today like self-pride, judgementalism and intolerance of people who belong to a different demographic (like todays hipsters sneering at bogans, bogans sneering at toffs, ladies who lunch sneering at hipsters, etc.). In their society at that time, almost everyone pulled together for the common good and people knew that there was almost no malice (except for the tiny "political class" who were as bitchy as their modern counterparts are today). So unless a off-hand comment was obviously malicious, no one took offence, even if it came out sort of wrong.

Now of course, things have changed. Today we often take offence on behalf of others. I'm as guilty of that as anyone because, while I'm definitely not a bogan, I get offended when my trendy, wealthy neighbours in North Carlton see people in the outer suburbs as uncultured and dismiss their views as of little consequence. I suspect many people also take offence at Prince Phillip's remarks, not because they feel personally slighted, but they take offence on behalf of others. But when that 1910 - 1925 generation was young, people knew that there was no malice and no sneering in an off hand remark, so they just let comments that came out a bit awkwardly when they were spoken "go through to the keeper". That was what society expected, after all, everyone makes verbal mistakes. But these days if a public figure makes even a slightly "wrong" comment just once, their reputation is tarnished for years and that one little slip is sometimes used against them for the rest of their lives.

So I still maintain that Prince Phillip is just a product of the times he grew up in. The only "sin" he is guilty of is not changing with the times, but at 96 years old, I like to think we could be gracious enough to grant him and the few survivors of his generation a little slack. Wink

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.