also from Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy website


Quote:

Written by Robert Finch     Tuesday, 24 August 2010 [This is a column written by the dynamic young Dominion Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, Robert (Bob) Finch. He recently met The Queen on Her Majesty's recent homecoming to Canada.  Mr.Finch describes this as a "truly special moment in his life". Australians will understand that. ] I couldn't help but ask myself what on earth are Australian republican politicians afraid of when it comes to championing their supposedly-beloved cause?   In case you weren't aware, Australians are in the midst of a federal election campaign pitting Prime Minister Julia Gillard (a republican) vs. Tony Abott (a monarchist, who is the former executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy). Recently, the Prime Minister announced that she favours a republic but only after The Queen's reign ends.  In typical fashion she qualifies her republicanism by saying Australians respect and admire Her Majesty.  (So, why exactly are you a republican again?) It's become obvious that republicanism is no longer the chic thing it used to be Down Under.  Those advocating an end to the time-tested monarchy have replaced their "I am a republican" mantra with "I am a republican, but..."  Call 'em republican-lites. Of course, republicans in Canada (yes, we've got a few here, too) also cite the end of The Queen's reign as the time when they think Canadians will all of a sudden wake up and magically become republicans.  Their thinking is flawed. Republicans in both Australia and Canada are counting on one thing and one thing only: an unpopular Prince Charles.  Their assumptions are based on the idea that people will reject Prince Charles as their king.  The problem with this strategy is simple: who says Charles will be unpopular when becomes King? When the sad day comes and The Queen passes on, Charles will become King of the 16 Commonwealth Realms immediately.  Sorry, no time to debate and change the constitution in that brief second of transition. Nobody can predict the emotional state of the people during this time.  No doubt, there will be profound sadness at the passing of the only Sovereign most of us have ever known. And, I suspect many people will have an enormous amount of sympathy for the Prince of Wales and will be impressed with the way the he and Prince William present themselves during what will surely be a difficult period of time. Ultimately, there will be less hostility and more sympathy - coupled with a "let's give this guy a chance" mentality. If republican politicans were true to their words, they would champion their cause now instead of putting it off.  In other words, don't talk the talk but rather walk the walk. Could it be that they are afraid that their cause is simply doomed to failure?  Yes.  They're scared.  So, they cling to a flawed strategy that pays lip service to the declining republican movement while allowing them to still boast, "I am a republican" - sorry "I am a republican, BUT..."

Quote:

The problem with this strategy is simple: who says Charles will be unpopular when becomes King?

You dont need a poll to know that most think Charles is the IDIOT son of the Queen. The prince-who-wants-to-be-a-tampon is a moron that we would all reject. The republican movement has majority supprt but little passion simply because the Queen is a good person and the republic gives us nothing of any consequence.  But when the idiot becomes King, then the equation changes. Perhaps only a little, but enough to ensure we become a republic.

Charles isn't that stupid. While he does have some flaws (attitudes on Islam, for instance), he has a refreshing, wonderful sense of aesthetics and excellent taste in architecture. His experimentations with garden design and urban developments (see Roger Scruton's article on the new village of Poundbury, Charles' and Leon Krier's pet project) for instance lead me to believe that we may in fact be dealing with a monarch who is far more visionary than most contemporary elected politicians.

There's nothing more boring than listening to mainstream politicians today. Charles as monarch will bring to attention throughout the British Isles and beyond issues of upmost importance like the decline of the aesthethic quality of urban regions. These issues are ignored by the current morons in our governments because their only interest is money and being re-elected.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 4:56pm:

Quote: The problem with this strategy is simple: who says Charles will be unpopular when becomes King? You dont need a poll to know that most think Charles is the IDIOT son of the Queen. The prince-who-wants-to-be-a-tampon is a moron that we would all reject. The republican movement has majority supprt but little passion simply because the Queen is a good person and the republic gives us nothing of any consequence.  But when the idiot becomes King, then the equation changes. Perhaps only a little, but enough to ensure we become a republic.

Sand in your giney LW?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 4:56pm: Quote: The problem with this strategy is simple: who says Charles will be unpopular when becomes King? You dont need a poll to know that most think Charles is the IDIOT son of the Queen. The prince-who-wants-to-be-a-tampon is a moron that we would all reject. The republican movement has majority supprt but little passion simply because the Queen is a good person and the republic gives us nothing of any consequence.  But when the idiot becomes King, then the equation changes. Perhaps only a little, but enough to ensure we become a republic. Sand in your giney LW?

The only two valid reasons to remain in the Commonwealth is to kick the poms awse in the pool and to avoid the ludicrous cost associated with changing the status quo.

The Queen is becoming less relevant on a daily basis in Australia, in less than a generation their will be nary an Australian alive that will give two hoots about the Royal Family; as the oldies die off their might be a call for change, but I doubt will see the Peoples Republic of Australia anytime soon.

Hands up, those people who genuinely believe we will still have the monarch of England as our Head of State in, say, 100 years?

Shall we keep this arrangement forever? Oceans rise, mountains fall, and Australia remains unchanged and unchangeable?

Upon the abdication of Edward VIII, his hapless, stuttering embarrassment of a brother, ascended to become the loved and respected George VI. Together with his wife and children, they promoted themselves as in some way "ordinary" and transformed the Royal family into the epitome of British decency in an indecent world.

It seems British Princes of Wales or heirs-apparent are cursed with the stigma of irrelevancy (or disenfranchisement) for those of them who must await the departure of a British/English Queen.

It's almost certain that Charles (whose chosen regnal name apparently will be George VII - thus channelling his grandfather, great-grandfather and the Hanoverian dynasty ) will be transformed by his grieving over the loss of the world's most highly respected, loved and esteemed head of state into what British monarchy has always been so effective at rendering - the unbroken living connection with British/English history.

And that's great for Britain (actually England). For Australia, we must look to ourselves for that continuity with our history and not cling to vicarious memory and its rendering to us the legacy of our diminutive (and disgraceful initial) role in a now defunct Empire.

Our historical heritage is English, as we all know. At the time of white settlement of Australia, Britian had the best of political and legalsystems, this can rightly be a point of pride for Aussies.  This has changed somewhat since GB became a Muslim country.

Pity the 'best political and legal system' saw fit, on the eve of the collapse of the black slave trade in Britain, initially to render Australia as a haven for what amounted to white slavery.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 5:07pm:

Charles isn't that stupid. While he does have some flaws (attitudes on Islam, for instance), he has a refreshing, wonderful sense of aesthetics and excellent taste in architecture. His experimentations with garden design and urban developments (see Roger Scruton's article on the new village of Poundbury, Charles' and Leon Krier's pet project) for instance lead me to believe that we may in fact be dealing with a monarch who is far more visionary than most contemporary elected politicians.

Was that garden design and communication? He's an expert in garden plant psychology too.

If you mention Prince Charles to Architects in the UK, as I did once, they fall into two categories. They either go all aggressive or they glance at each other with a knowing smile and try not to laugh.

The guy is a buffoon. I met him once, and there is nothing extraordinary about him.

Abbott was former executive director of Australians for a constitutional monarchy?
Shoot, that is another reason not to want him as our PM right there.
The hits just keep on coming.
Is their any hare brained extreme right wing group this guy has not been associated with?

Quote:

If you mention Prince Charles to Architects in the UK, as I did once, they fall into two categories. They either go all aggressive or they glance at each other with a knowing smile and try not to laugh.

Architects today attempt to knock down anybody who prefers a tradtionalist/return to the past approach to architectural styles and urban design. Of course architects today aren't going to like Charles, given his opinions on most modern architecture (in total concurrence with my own opinions). I don't take them seriously at all; they are the people who have transformed our inner cities and business districts into hideous, faceless meshes of glass towers and modernist blocks after all. Maybe you're right about Charles though; I don't know, but I'm a huge aficionado of "old fashioned" architecture and seeing somebody so prominent sharing my opinions on it excites me a great deal.


Quote:

Is their any hare brained extreme right wing group this guy has not been associated with?

Do you honestly think that a group like "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" is an "extreme right wing group"? ::)

Quote:

Do you honestly think that a group like "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" is an "extreme right wing group"?

YES, I do.

As for this thread, does anyone give a toss what Canada think of us?

Quote:

YES, I do.

I wasn't asking you, devil-man :D

MJD wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:45pm:

also from Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy website Quote: Written by Robert Finch     Tuesday, 24 August 2010 [This is a column written by the dynamic young Dominion Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, Robert (Bob) Finch. He recently met The Queen on Her Majesty's recent homecoming to Canada.  Mr.Finch describes this as a "truly special moment in his life". Australians will understand that. ] I couldn't help but ask myself what on earth are Australian republican politicians afraid of when it comes to championing their supposedly-beloved cause?   In case you weren't aware, Australians are in the midst of a federal election campaign pitting Prime Minister Julia Gillard (a republican) vs. Tony Abott (a monarchist, who is the former executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy). Recently, the Prime Minister announced that she favours a republic but only after The Queen's reign ends.  In typical fashion she qualifies her republicanism by saying Australians respect and admire Her Majesty.  (So, why exactly are you a republican again?) It's become obvious that republicanism is no longer the chic thing it used to be Down Under.  Those advocating an end to the time-tested monarchy have replaced their "I am a republican" mantra with "I am a republican, but..."  Call 'em republican-lites. Of course, republicans in Canada (yes, we've got a few here, too) also cite the end of The Queen's reign as the time when they think Canadians will all of a sudden wake up and magically become republicans.  Their thinking is flawed. Republicans in both Australia and Canada are counting on one thing and one thing only: an unpopular Prince Charles.  Their assumptions are based on the idea that people will reject Prince Charles as their king.  The problem with this strategy is simple: who says Charles will be unpopular when becomes King? When the sad day comes and The Queen passes on, Charles will become King of the 16 Commonwealth Realms immediately.  Sorry, no time to debate and change the constitution in that brief second of transition. Nobody can predict the emotional state of the people during this time.  No doubt, there will be profound sadness at the passing of the only Sovereign most of us have ever known. And, I suspect many people will have an enormous amount of sympathy for the Prince of Wales and will be impressed with the way the he and Prince William present themselves during what will surely be a difficult period of time. Ultimately, there will be less hostility and more sympathy - coupled with a "let's give this guy a chance" mentality. If republican politicans were true to their words, they would champion their cause now instead of putting it off.  In other words, don't talk the talk but rather walk the walk. Could it be that they are afraid that their cause is simply doomed to failure?  Yes.  They're scared.  So, they cling to a flawed strategy that pays lip service to the declining republican movement while allowing them to still boast, "I am a republican" - sorry "I am a republican, BUT..."

skippy. wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 9:24am:

[quote] YES, I do. As for this thread, does anyone give a toss what Canada think of us?

I open this thread thinking it was about what Canada throught about the outcome of the election and it's only about Lizzy.

Know what I say **** Lizzy we got more important things to talk about.

Quote:

Not very nice of law firm Slater & Gordon to rain on OZ Minerals' parade by lodging a class action yesterday against the company, alleging disclosure shortcomings – refuted by OZ - during part of 2008.

Quote:

Garimpeiro is offering a prize to anyone who can provide photographic evidence of Julia's Solomons excursion, with or without the short red skirt.

Where's Jamie Fawcett when we need him... 8-)


http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-flash-of-red-in-the-solomons-was-it-our-julia-20100825-13qw2.html