| | The Royals and the RelevancePage 1 of 3 (1, 2, 3) | Just looking at the 60th Anniversary of Queen Lizzie being Queen and all the best of pomp and circumstance that only the brits can muster, Im wondering; are the royals still relevant?
My mum (mid 70's) looks at Liz with admiration "Oh, she is a remarkable woman". I guess Mah had a whole heap longer to get to know Liz than I have as to me she isnt 'remarkable' by modern standards.
Im not a republican by any means and I am aware of our colonial history (achievements and atrocities) of our great country but are the royals still 'up there' in the relevance stakes. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/3/2012 11:03:46 PM | Personally I dont think they are relevant anymore...however when Lizzie came to Perth last year, by accident I met her...trust me, it was by accident and I must admit I was, as the Brits would say rather "chuffed" that I did, and I was in awe of her beautiful English complexion (but was I chuffed that it was a Royal or a famous person ??, I could not say) ..however all she is nowadays is a figurehead, given, who does do a fine job, and that figurehead, her family and traditions all brings the tourist dollar to the UK (which at the moment desperately needs it) and no one can put on quite the show that the Brits/Royals can.
One may want to tear the monarchy down for whatever reasons, but when you take something away, you must consider what you are going to put in its place..and for the UK, well Royalty has certianly worked for them for thousands of years...and I like to think of all the hundreds/if not thousand of Brits who are employed directly or indirectly as result of the Monarchy being in existence and tourism etc, so if you got rid of the Monarchy, one assumes that many common Brits would be adversely affected.
Im not a republican, Im not a Royalist..Im an American...and we sorted out what we wanted 200 odd years ago. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 1:22:24 AM | The relevance of the Royals to Australia may in the modern context of our perceptions not be as relevant as it once was.
Yes Canada changed it's flag but the majority of it's people still want the Royals as their ultimate head of government.
The Queen and Prince Philip do hold great affection in the hearts of many older Australians because of WW2, where the Queen and her sister Margaret drove ambulances around London during the bombing blitz and found time to visit the citizens of London who had their homes destroyed by the bombs and the citizens who were hospitalised because of the bombing as well, Prince Philip served aboard warships during sea battles.
For all the bad press the Prince gets, he gave up his claim to the Greek throne for the love of his life, something that a lot of older citizens of the commonwealth have respected him for.
Prince Charles went to school in Geelong for a time and was treated as an equal by his school mates.
I think that the relevance of the Royals will be debated for a number of years to come and only the individual will decide whether the Royals will be relevant to them.
In England there would be a large increase in the unemployment level if the Royals cease as the effect would be felt in the racing industry, tourism industry and many other industries.
Something that didn't get a lot of air time was the fact that the Queen culled a lot of Royals from receiving allowances from the public purse and now all Royals pay taxes.
When I joined the army I had a choice to take the Oath of Allegience to the Queen or to make an Affirmation of Allegience, two different oaths and I took the Oath of Allegience to the Queen. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 1:38:56 AM | I am not a Monarchist, but I did go to a school that sang "God Save the Queen" on a daily basis.
I am not a 'true' republican either, I am not fond of the American/Americanised system.
I have respect for the Royals (in a strange way) - Personally, I'd pick the royals over the Kardashians any day...
(it could be that I have a great Royal Family Pop-up book) | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 1:42:02 AM | | Like it or not these unelected, unaccountable sponges are extremely relevant... just ask Gough Whitlam. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 2:09:39 AM | I have always imagined the queen smells of baby powder.....dunno why.
I can't say as im overly interested in them, but I do think the Brits should hang onto her for as long as possible. Compared to Charlie amd his bride/horse she's a definate winner! | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 12:28:23 PM | | off with their heads..................................................................................................................................... | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 4:00:21 PM | | If nothing else, they throw a mighty fine party!! I must admit, no one does pomp and circumsance like the poms and more so the royals. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/8/2012 2:38:14 AM | At the start of the 20th Century the major European countries were colonial empires. During Queen Elizabeth's reign (Post WWII World) many of the former European colonies broke away from their colonial masters. Most of these break aways brought violent armed opposition by the colonial masters ... except for the United Kingdom.
There was violence in former British Commonwealth nations, but these were precipitated by internal factions struggling for power not imperial police actions as there were with other European nations.
A good deal of the credit for the gentle release of former Colonies which had become British Commonwealth countries onto the path of their own nationhood can be given to HRH Elizabeth II.
Even in 1999, 70% of Australia including me, an ethnic Irishman, nominal Catholic, Republican and general rebel voted to leave the Head of State powers with QE II and her successors rather than give them to our own countryman John Winston Howard.
I might add in balance, that the one failure of peaceful transition has been in Ireland. However the seeds of torment in that troubled land were sown nearly a millenia ago. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/8/2012 3:24:39 AM |
Most of these break aways brought violent armed opposition by the colonial masters ... except for the United Kingdom.
Oh thankyou, Your Majesty! Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou for not murdering your humble subjects. Not like in the Second Boer War when British scorched earth policies and invention of concentration camps were so successful in crushing the previous rebellion.
The difference between then and post WW2 must have been the graciousness of Her Majesty! That the Boer Wars demonstrated British weakness to its foes (Germans) and forced it to seek allies (French, Russian, Japanese) and the controversial crushing of the resistance in Second Boer War set the lines for WW1 would surely not have anything to do with it? You know, the WW1 that cost 16.5 million lives and the crippling Treaty of Versailles that led to WW2 that cost 62-79 million lives.
A bankrupt Britain with few poor people left to murder on its behalf to maintin an Empire and a Britain that knew exactly what crushing rebellions means for their own prosperity only spared us because of this wonderfully benevolent monarch.
A good deal of the credit for the gentle release of former Colonies which had become British Commonwealth countries onto the path of their own nationhood can be given to HRH Elizabeth II.
Hear, hear! | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/8/2012 3:52:33 AM | Even in 1999, 70% of Australia including me, an ethnic Irishman, nominal Catholic, Republican and general rebel voted to leave the Head of State powers with QE II
I think you mean 54.87%, and that was with a corrupt system of politicians appointing the president as the alternative. | |
|
| |
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/8/2012 6:56:20 AM |
Whats wrong with a president appointed by a majority vote of 2 houses of parliament?
Would work ok.
If we want the president to have limited powers and be above the political system.
Personally I'd prefer if there were no Queen, no President and no Parliament because I think all states are morally corrupt. But thats another story.
To answer more specifically, I see a corruption if parliament elects the president with a two-thirds majority because if the President has no real power then one isn't needed - they're a farcical figurehead to appease the restless masses with a celebrity big-brother circus. If the President has real power, then the wheeling and dealing to appoint one behind the scenes gives even more control of the system to factions, power-brokers and lobbyists (ie. evil). | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/10/2012 3:25:58 PM |
Oh thankyou, Your Majesty! Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou for not murdering your humble subjects. Not like in the Second Boer War when British scorched earth policies and invention of concentration camps were so successful in crushing the previous rebellion.
Now QE II's daddy wasn't even a twinkle in Victoria and Albert's eye when that was happening ... would you also like to blame the American war of 1812 on her?
The difference between then and post WW2 must have been the graciousness of Her Majesty! That the Boer Wars demonstrated British weakness to its foes (Germans) and forced it to seek allies (French, Russian, Japanese) and the controversial crushing of the resistance in Second Boer War set the lines for WW1 would surely not have anything to do with it? You know, the WW1 that cost 16.5 million lives and the crippling Treaty of Versailles that led to WW2 that cost 62-79 million lives.
WWII ... well QE II WAS a teenager ... and we know teenagers rule the world ... by the way, how old are you Ginger?
A bankrupt Britain with few poor people left to murder on its behalf to maintin an Empire and a Britain that knew exactly what crushing rebellions means for their own prosperity only spared us because of this wonderfully benevolent monarch.
My point was EXACTLY that the European (and I'll add here US) colonial powers had been rapacious in their supression of nationalism within their colonies. The European powers of France (Veitnam), and Portugal (several African colonies and Timor) continued to be rapacious and the Dutch, Germans and Italians would have continued their old ways if WWII hadn't destroyed their capability to wage war around the globe. Britain and her Commonwealth and their ally the US had the only viable across the Globe military force. Russia was reduced to "fifth column" (diplomacy and spies) activity.
The World was left paying for the waste of resources caused by war. But Britain was far from bankrupt.
Consider, "In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is King." | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/10/2012 6:55:23 PM | So those that think there is no relevance,who here had the day off?.....who went to work and not ask for penalty rates?.
Its like asking whats the relevance of the Greek Christmas or Ramadan or low and behold Halloween etc
Can of worms in life and todays society | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/10/2012 7:31:00 PM |
Now QE II's daddy wasn't even a twinkle in Victoria and Albert's eye when that was happening ... would you also like to blame the American war of 1812 on her?
No, I was just establishing that Britain knew all about brutal crushing of colonies and the long-term consequences for their own wealth. So the argument that: 'we were not brutally repressed during Liz's reign, therefore she must be a magnificent person' doesn't hold. There were other, more significant reasons we weren't brutally repressed that had nothing to do with her.
by the way, how old are you Ginger?
Since it only takes a click on my profile to see my age, I assume you're making some obscure point. Care to elaborate?
the Dutch, Germans and Italians would have continued their old ways if WWII hadn't destroyed their capability to wage war around the globe. Britain and her Commonwealth and their ally the US had the only viable across the Globe military force.
Britain belonged in the first group with no capacity to project international violence, not in the second with the US. They couldn't keep their own overseas troops under control, let alone bully with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Mutiny_of_1946
Britain was far from bankrupt.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#After_the_war
"Bread, which had been reduced in quality during the war but not formally controlled, was rationed from 1946 to 1948; potato rationing began in 1947."
"Clothes rationing ended on 15 March 1949."
"petrol rationing ended on 26 May 1950."
"Sweet rationing ended in February 1953, and sugar rationing ended in September 1953; however, the end of all food rationing did not come until 4 July 1954, with meat the last to become freely available again"
"Petrol rationing was briefly reintroduced in late 1956 during the Suez Crisis but ended again on 14 May 1957"
Without even looking at the details of lend lease debts etc. you can clearly see that if the British rulers tried to start another war on the other side of the world while their people were on bread rations there would have been a revolution at home. It is no coincedence that the independence that the Indians had been agitating for since the Boer Wars was finally successful in 1947.
The empire was finished and there was nothing Liz could do about it. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/14/2012 9:05:52 AM | No Relevence
So not Interested in the Monarchy that is this commonwealth
Government of Australia, not interested that the queen touched down in perth
not interested at all.
If we where Independent & a Republic we would be better off, just off the subject.
They spent 7 Million on that period of time she was here for CHOGM
im sorry & for what? world leaders to get together and discuss
more ways to agree to the same terms of rulership, to tax etc
She knows brittish people settle here so they want to praise her with naming a place
in perth in honour of her yeah more tax more money wasted.
2012 lets move on, Australians We Are Realists. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/15/2012 1:54:36 AM | | quite simply ver not- its antiquated imperialism thts last century but vey havnt caught on yet. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/15/2012 5:59:46 AM | The Queen still get's her hand's on Australian tax payer's money.
Way back in the day Australia was a place of no return where Britain sent their convict's to rot.
They made a civilization and grew strong, so the Queen decided to cash in and it's been that way ever since.
The Queen is British so why is Australia tied to her? How many times has she come to visit her loyal tax payer's in Australia over her 60 years?
She is trying so hard to keep the monarchy alive and will do anything in her power to make this so.....Ask Princess Diana. | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/16/2012 5:52:33 AM | The Royals are great theater and history, but are they really worth all the billions the UK has bestowed on them, especially during terrible economic times?
I suppose over-the-top celebrations like the Queen's Jubilee is reassuring to the British people, sort of like revisiting your warm and fuzzy teddy bear from childhood, and I'm sure most would have no problem justifying the cost.
I guess they serve a purpose to the fabric of British life, but I wonder if their relevance will diminish once Elizabeth passes. I can't see any replacement royal with as much staying power.
Anyway, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote his usual expurgatory essay about the subject that's an entertaining read:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/04/beware_the_inlaws.html | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/7/2012 5:03:06 PM | | The Girl Guides have now changed their oath to exclude the Queen and God.Not that i really care,however their reasoning for excluding God was that everyone has different religions.Now doesn't every religion have a God?.And is not the Queen still the Queen of Australia?. | |
|
Tah,
| | Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 23 | |
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/7/2012 11:08:07 PM | I am actualy reading this book published by a bloke that gets around my ways, it's called -Irrititja-the past . Authors are Ingkama Bobby brown and petter Attila Naessan. Published by Keeaira press.
Guy was born in the desert near cooper pedy in 1940, in 53 he was out learning his people's traditional ways when this cloud came, British soldiers then took them by gun to camp and subjected them to tests, those that tested positive to radiation were taken to woomera at gunpoint and held in camp, subjected to more tests, including x rays (DO"H) he couldn't go camping anymore eating traditional food...
Heap of his family died from radiation related illness's, he's got some issues to..
Local copper who had the biggest beat there is was given like a day or so to clear the area before the first atomic tests.
I actualy thought we liberated camps in germany in ww2 from this sought of guinea pig stuff? /confused | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 5:21:25 AM | Stumbled on this thread by mistake. God Save The Qeen......
What a load of twaddle - You Republican twats are on the correct way.
We Brits want to get rid of the you 'Billabongs' leeching our British coffers.
Please please Austrailians vote for Independance and we have you hanging round our coat tails for ever.
Regards
CY
Proud to be Scottish, Proud to be British, Proud to be Blue!!! | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 5:29:58 AM | Unfortunately Chasyates,
We have never been given the vote to do so...
(as most of us would be happy to be rid of the ties too...) | |
|
| The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 5:46:03 AM |
Proud to be Scottish, Proud to be British, Proud to be Blue!!!
As in Blue Balls??.....go figure!! | |
|
Home
login 
