On Current Affair just now the Queen and Prince Phil are stepping down from public duties.

Only Philip.

Not quite the same thing as handing over to Chuckles as King Charles III.

Gaf  ::)

Oh well better to be half right than half wrong.

Then when is the Queen stepping down?

I reckon everyone is dreading Prince Charles and Camila becoming King and Princess. I reckon that's why the Queen won't step down.

Prince Charles is even more boring than Snorten Shorten.

Juliar = Wanker ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Juliar is forgiven for posting fake news.

namaste

Booby posts fake news every day and never apologises for loading the board down with crap.

Well, Phil is 95 and been crook for a while...  I don't blame him for standing down from official duties - though it probably means he is in very poor health.

Watch this front for breaking news....

Ohh poo....now the Republican  debate will fire up.


Imagine. . These current  idiots  ( and i including  both sides of Parliament ) in complete  control  :-[

Book me a ticket  out here ...quick.

Australia  hasn't  the talent to survive  as a republic.

We have been going  backwards  for the last 15 years with the current  status  quo  >:(

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

Well, Phil is 95 and been crook for a while...  I don't blame him for standing down from official duties - though it probably means he is in very poor health. Watch this front for breaking news....

If I were he, I'd have told them all to far cough ages ago.  Guess that's why he is there and Ima not.

He has done a great ceremonial job.

Oh, seriously. Only a leftart would give a toss about this sort of nonsense.

Who cares?

I thought after Abbo knighted Prince Phillip nothing would stop him.

juliar wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

I thought after Abbo knighted Prince Phillip nothing would stop him.

I know you do, dear. Knighting Prince Phillip was "Abbo's" political masterstroke.

That, and that nippers Manly surf carnival and fete he did. The footage the networks captured in "Abbo's" speedos was divine.

Nice work, Peta. Thanks, Abbo.

juliar wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Oh well better to be half right than half wrong. Then when is the Queen stepping down? I reckon everyone is dreading Prince Charles and Camila becoming King and Princess. I reckon that's why the Queen won't step down. Prince Charles is even more boring than Snorten Shorten.

Probably never. I don't believe a reigning British monarch has ever stood down of their own volition in favour of their heir.

Enquiring mind wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 9:20pm:

juliar wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm: I thought after Abbo knighted Prince Phillip nothing would stop him. I know you do, dear. Knighting Prince Phillip was "Abbo's" political masterstroke. That, and that nippers Manly surf carnival and fete he did. The footage the networks captured in "Abbo's" speedos was divine. Nice work, Peta. Thanks, Abbo.

Your take downs are legendary  ;)

Its time wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 9:51pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:20pm: juliar wrote on May 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm: I thought after Abbo knighted Prince Phillip nothing would stop him. I know you do, dear. Knighting Prince Phillip was "Abbo's" political masterstroke. That, and that nippers Manly surf carnival and fete he did. The footage the networks captured in "Abbo's" speedos was divine. Nice work, Peta. Thanks, Abbo. Your take downs are legendary  ;)

Unfortunately wasted on an idiot like juLiar. Wouldn't have the sense to know.

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:52pm:

Juliar is forgiven for posting fake news. namaste

;D

.... in breaking news today......... juliar is stepping in it...... psychiatric experts say there is nothing unusual about this, and it has no real effect on juliar in any meaningful way..... in other news.... Her Maj is not stepping down just yet, but she's decided, over a game of whist in the middle of the night, that her husband, Prince Philip, may retired in August, since he will be 96..... meanwhile, nobody has died at the palace, and Prince William will not by-pass his father for the crown..... the latest poll says that Prince Harry is considered much more fun.......

Nope - she doesn't stoop to concur.....

juliar wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Oh well better to be half right than half wrong. Then when is the Queen stepping down? I reckon everyone is dreading Prince Charles and Camila becoming King and Princess. I reckon that's why the Queen won't step down. Prince Charles is even more boring than Snorten Shorten.

"the king is dead, long live the king"

The statement is one of continuity the current monarch has died long live the succeeding ruler. There is an expectation that the King or Queen will die in office - there is no stepping down from this position.

Can I  hijack this thread and ask if you  would  support  Australia  becoming  a Republic and serving all ties with Great Britain?

Francis wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 7:28am:

Can I  hijack this thread and ask if you  would  support  Australia  becoming  a Republic and serving all ties with Great Britain?

;D

Ahhh no.

And how do you "sever" all ties with GB?

Phil is ceasing his official duties ... no need for any further speculation.

Francis wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 7:28am:

Can I  hijack this thread and ask if you  would  support  Australia  becoming  a Republic and serving all ties with Great Britain?

I don't particularly like the republic label, why do we need to be something different to what we are ?

At this point I would say no, mainly because the republicans are trying to stack any contest and produce a positive result for them to allow a model that we probably won't like to be locked in.

Besides I rather like that we are a little different from the crowd, we have a good structure with unobtrusive ties to a system with a great tradition and stability. Most of the argument in support of change is vexatious and dishonest. The desire for change seems to be just that change for no or little genuine reason or with no advantage, it is simply change for the sake of change.

The fact is it would be change without benefit or reason but holding a significant risk and great cost.

When you queue up the words you get expensive, risky, dishonest, no advantage, no improvement, just a different label.

We currently have one of the best systems in the world, why would we risk that for no advantage ?

The current pro republic position is to ask us to just sign a blank cheque, they will not tell us anything about the actual structure they want us to support. They are saying just sign here on the dotted line and we will tell you what you agreed too later.

They are clearly aiming at the gullible sheep of our community, don't worry the cheque is in the mail and your mouth will remain pristine.

Dnarever wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 10:47am:

Francis wrote on May 6th, 2017 at 7:28am: Can I  hijack this thread and ask if you  would  support  Australia  becoming  a Republic and serving all ties with Great Britain? I don't particularly like the republic label, why do we need to be something different to what we are ? At this point I would say no, mainly because the republicans are trying to stack any contest and produce a positive result for them to allow a model that we probably won't like to be locked in. Besides I rather like that we are a little different from the crowd, we have a good structure with unobtrusive ties to a system with a great tradition and stability. Most of the argument in support of change is vexatious and dishonest. The desire for change seems to be just that change for no or little genuine reason or with no advantage, it is simply change for the sake of change. The fact is it would be change without benefit or reason but holding a significant risk and great cost. When you queue up the words you get expensive, risky, dishonest, no advantage, no improvement, just a different label. We currently have one of the best systems in the world, why would we risk that for no advantage ? The current pro republic position is to ask us to just sign a blank cheque, they will not tell us anything about the actual structure they want us to support. They are saying just sign here on the dotted line and we will tell you what you agreed too later. They are clearly aiming at the gullible sheep of our community, don't worry the cheque is in the mail and your mouth will remain pristine.

That depends on which Republicans you are talking about..... there are the 'republicans' who simply want to replace the G-G with a parliament-elected stooge, and there are the Republicans who want a PEP with real powers and answerable to the people.

I tend towards republicanism for the simple reason that any change is better than what we've got, but not towards the style preferred by the current despots in Parliament.

juliar wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Oh well better to be half right than half wrong.

Where exactly are you half right?

The Queen isn't stepping down
Prince Phillip is merely retiring from public duties at the age of 95

You got it completely wrong as usual juliar

I am not for a republic..I like our ties with Great Britian and it would be sad if the Queen retired from public life..I really rather like her

I believe we should explore the ways and means to become a Republic or how to import our own Monarchy.

My problem is that the Crown of Australia is only worn part time, when the Monarch is downunder.   Otherwise, the Monarch is wearing the Crown of the UK.   The Monarch and her family regularly represent the UK at trade fairs and on diplomatic missions - the detriment of Australia.

If we had our own HoS (either elected/appointed/inherited), those concerns would be eased or cease.

If we had our own Monarch - personally I favour Anne moving to Canberra and becoming an Australian citizen - it would answer most of the concerns of the Republicans and the Monarchists.   It would cut the Gordian knot and solve most of the problems most Australians have with how our HoS is selected.   It would even solve Tone Rabbits desire for a bush aristocracy.    ::)

^ I quite like your thinking  Brian. I think  one of  the bigger  pitfalls  will be how one is selected  and the subsequent media /political  frenzy over the process.

This is an interesting notion:


Quote:

If we had our own Monarch - personally I favour Anne moving to Canberra and becoming an Australian citizen - it would answer most of the concerns of the Republicans and the Monarchists.   It would cut the Gordian knot and solve most of the problems most Australians have with how our HoS is selected.   It would even solve Tone Rabbits desire for a bush aristocracy.

I'd not select Anne.  Harry please. 

The notion makes for an almost seamless transition, but....is their any aspect of Australian Royal Family and dynasty to be attached to it?  I guess so....why bother otherwise?

Not sure I'd be too concerned anyway.

It's all about opening fetes and attending to pomp/ceremony.

Aussie wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

This is an interesting notion: Quote: If we had our own Monarch - personally I favour Anne moving to Canberra and becoming an Australian citizen - it would answer most of the concerns of the Republicans and the Monarchists.   It would cut the Gordian knot and solve most of the problems most Australians have with how our HoS is selected.   It would even solve Tone Rabbits desire for a bush aristocracy. I'd not select Anne.  Harry please.  The notion makes for an almost seamless transition, but....is their any aspect of Australian Royal Family and dynasty to be attached to it?  I guess so....why bother otherwise? Not sure I'd be too concerned anyway. It's all about opening fetes and attending to pomp/ceremony.

Harry is too young and too foolish.   Anne is mature and like her mother, has a brain in her head.   She has a daughter whom is married and a grandchild.   So, the prospects look good for continuation of the Monarchy downunder.    She would, of course have to renounce her British citizenship and become an Australian citizen, as would her daughter and grand-daughter.   She would reside in Canberra, as would her daughter and grand-daughter.

Her son-in-law plays Rugby so that would make him an excellent ambassador to the people of Australia, if and when her daughter became Queen.

She would have to renounce all kinship and inheritance of the UK Crown.   She would replace the Governor-General and reside in Australia as our HoS.

Okay....but the bottom line is.....a Windsor birth right President of the Australian Republic.

Novel....and I am almost supportive as it gets all the political crap out of the way.

Aussie wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 7:48pm:

Okay....but the bottom line is.....a Windsor birth right President of the Australian Republic. Novel....and I am almost supportive as it gets all the political crap out of the way.

'cause it does.  Which is why the Monarchists will hate it and why the Republicans will hate it.   For the die hard ones, it's all or nothing.   To the Monarchists, we need to keep tugging our forelocks to the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gothas.  To the Republicans they want to tug their forelocks to Bob Menzies/Gough Whitlam.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

Aussie wrote on May 6th, 2017 at 7:48pm: Okay....but the bottom line is.....a Windsor birth right President of the Australian Republic. Novel....and I am almost supportive as it gets all the political crap out of the way. 'cause it does.  Which is why the Monarchists will hate it and why the Republicans will hate it.   For the die hard ones, it's all or nothing.   To the Monarchists, we need to keep tugging our forelocks to the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gothas.  To the Republicans they want to tug their forelocks to Bob Menzies/Gough Whitlam.    ::)

Don't think there are many Monarchists, the majority who don't want change just see no need to spend a load of money and get nothing if we are lucky and it isn't stuffed up.

I am not a monarchist and I support the status quo just because the proposed change is expensive, silly, dangerous and dishonest.

What we have is one of the best systems in the world, why would we want to risk stuffing it up.

Dnarever wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 10:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2017 at 9:47pm: Aussie wrote on May 6th, 2017 at 7:48pm: Okay....but the bottom line is.....a Windsor birth right President of the Australian Republic. Novel....and I am almost supportive as it gets all the political crap out of the way. 'cause it does.  Which is why the Monarchists will hate it and why the Republicans will hate it.   For the die hard ones, it's all or nothing.   To the Monarchists, we need to keep tugging our forelocks to the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gothas.  To the Republicans they want to tug their forelocks to Bob Menzies/Gough Whitlam.    ::) Don't think there are many Monarchists, the majority who don't want change just see no need to spend a load of money and get nothing if we are lucky and it isn't stuffed up. I am not a monarchist and I support the status quo just because the proposed change is expensive, silly, dangerous and dishonest. What we have is one of the best systems in the world, why would we want to risk stuffing it up.

Because we can become responsible for our own fate, rather than relying on a foreign monarch who only wears our crown when she visits?   ::)

Aussie wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

I'd not select Anne.  Harry please.

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 7:13pm:

Harry is too young and too foolish.   Anne is mature and like her mother, has a brain in her head.

And there lies the problem. We would never agree on which royal to adopt.
So instead of having the Monarchists v Republicans we would have Monarchists v Republicans v Princess Anne v Prince Harry etc etc.
With so many different options there would be no way of getting a majority that would be required to change the constitution.