Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  > The Royals and the Relevance      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 qldblue
Joined: 2/4/2009
Msg: 2
The Royals and the RelevancePage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
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.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 3
view profile
History
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.
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 4
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!
 Jewel_Of_Denial
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 5
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 6/4/2012 12:28:23 PM
off with their heads.....................................................................................................................................
 HappyRocker
Joined: 8/13/2011
Msg: 8
view profile
History
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.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 9
view profile
History
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!
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 10
view profile
History
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.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 11
view profile
History
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).
 HappyRocker
Joined: 8/13/2011
Msg: 12
view profile
History
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."
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 13
view profile
History
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.
 tensail
Joined: 10/15/2009
Msg: 14
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.
 AnAustralianWoman
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 15
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.
 motownmaniax
Joined: 8/13/2006
Msg: 16
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
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 17
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: 18
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
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 20
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!!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 21
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:07:27 AM
Oops!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 22
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:16:59 AM
Please please Austrailians vote for Independance and we have you hanging round our coat tails for ever.


Umm we are independent so what is there to vote for?The only ties we have with Pommyland these days are historical.Anyway the Queen is very fond of Australians, she probably likes us more than she likes some of her own Pommy subjects.Actually thats not a bad word to describe a Pommy- a "subject".

 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:30:56 AM

Umm we are independent so what is there to vote for?The only ties we have with Pommyland these days are historical.


Yes, independent if you don't count being ruled by the heirs of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. You do know what a constitutional monarchy is, don't you?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 24
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/26/2012 3:42:33 PM

We have never been given the vote to do so...

(as most of us would be happy to be rid of the ties too...)


Umm that is what the 1999 referendum was for.A constitutional monarchy ensures that not one person has absolute power and works well.So if it ain't broken don't fix it.The Queen has no influence over Australia politically.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 25
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 5:30:57 AM

That referendum was sabotaged by phil cleary, lets have another 1.
It doesnt work well, people who were born here dont feel any love for the flag or the royals halfway around the world.
Stay in the commonwealth, let someone born here be head of state.


How can a referendum be sabotaged?.The people voted.I was born here and personally I love our flag.The Governor-General is head of State and appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister.Big deal.Oh and by the way our Prime Minister wasn't even born here.Yeah lets change the Constitution so that people can only be Prime Minister if they are Australian by birth.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 26
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:24:14 AM

they dumped you Aussies here as human garbage, used you as cannon fodder in 2 wars... time to wake up.. cut the apron strings ffs.

Thanks for referring to our ancestors as "human garbage". I'm sure a lot of Aussies will really appreciate that.They didn't build a bad country after all.Obviously you weren't born here but flew here.Well if you don't like it fly back.As for the flag stiff cheddar it won't be being changed in the near future.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 27
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:38:00 AM
Im glad the immigrants from the Continent came here and helped build Australia as well.After all they didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 28
view profile
History
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 7/28/2012 8:01:28 AM

Im glad the immigrants from the Continent came here and helped build Australia as well.After all they didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country.


I think you've got that the wrong way around. The Brits didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country until the Romans showed them.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 29
The Royals and the Relevance
Posted: 8/6/2012 11:08:52 PM

I think you've got that the wrong way around. The Brits didn't know how to build a dunny in their own country until the Romans showed them.



Early toilets that used flowing water to remove the waste are also found at Skara Brae in Orkney, Scotland, which was occupied from about 3100 B.C. until 2500 B.C. Some of the houses there have a drain running directly beneath them, and some of these had a cubicle over the drain. Around the 18th century B.C., toilets started to appear in Minoan Crete; Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs and ancient Persia. In Roman civilization, toilets using flowing water were sometimes part of public bath houses.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet

Now the Romans didn't finally conquer Great Britain until about AD43 (i think). The Brits already had their own dunnies as per the above extract from Wiki.
Anyway the Romans can't be that smart as they used lead pipes for their water and poisoned everyone.
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  > The Royals and the Relevance