Australians who howl down Lidia Thorpe would do well to sit back and drink a big-arse cup of chill-out and introspection.

What did Thorpe do?

She spoke directly to Australia’s head of state (yes, in crass terms), about grievances of wrongs done by the sovereign’s successive governments, particularly between 1788 and the mid-20th century.

She was raw and undignified in her delivery, wearing her possum suit that made her look more like an Aboriginal-descent Dame Edna than an Australian senator.

She then betrayed her cause by her infantile disavowing of her oath by claiming she swore allegiance to the hairs of Elizabeth II, not to Charles III – leaving out the bit where she signed the oath of allegiance. When she sobered up from her young-teen regression, she tried to deflect her responsibility for it as a result of her not having a strong grasp of English due to the poor quality of Australian public education.

Her back-tacking was the act of a coward.

In summary, her performance was that of a narcissistic woman-child leveraging grievance culture to grab a headline, likely embarrassing all those who fight for the cause of justice for past wrongs committed in the name of the sovereign (the Crown), rather than elevating them or advancing the cause.

However, what does the monarchy-grovelling Australian machine do in response? Knee-jerk overreaction.

‘Ooo, whatever will Their Majesties think of us all, if we don’t bash this bitch?’.

‘She needs to be strung up. We need to toss her out of political life. Banish her to the shitheap with all the rest who use freedom of speech to address the sovereign so crassly.

That’ll teach the c~nt and anyone else thinking of pulling the same stunt.

What Australian grovellers to monarchy overlook is that NOT being overawed by the ‘majesty’ of monarchy – to not hold one’s tongue in the presence of our undemocratic head of state, is a grand affirmation of democracy’s most sacred ideal – that we are all inherently equal under our system of governance; that inherited sovereignty is an unreformable anathema to, and a slur on, that sacred ideal.

Nevertheless, the sovereign - the Crown - must be held accountable for acts committed in its name, as even a CEO of an errant company would be.

And, finally, to all Australian grovellers, who worry what our neighbours are thinking of this unruly cow in our midst? Well, Americans, for example, still bitch about King George III… 250+ years after he ceased to be their forebears’ head of state.

What would they likely think of this grovelling, (if they give a f~ck at all), I wonder – Arse-licking wankers, (or similar within an American vernacular) – given what they say about their own heads of state, I reckon.

As for Peta Credlin and Peter Dutton - the two Peta-ers...

Well, apart from their responses affirming Australia's surviving grovelling instinct - something that's well-evidenced in Australia anyway - if they derive some pleasure from a phallic-shaped sovereign, so long as it doesn't result in acts other than self-masturbation... then where's the harm, I guess?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 26^th, 2024 at 6:45am:

Nevertheless, the sovereign - the Crown - must be held accountable for acts committed in its name, as even a CEO of an errant company would be.

You may have heard of Kevin Rudd, if not of the constitution. He apologised as PM. He is not Charles, he is Kevin. Kevin is not a king. Or Aboriginal. Or Lidia. He's not Paul Keating (who is not the governor-general) but who did apologise. Paul is not a king. Or Kevin.

chimera wrote on Oct 26^th, 2024 at 10:12am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 26th, 2024 at 6:45am: Nevertheless, the sovereign - the Crown - must be held accountable for acts committed in its name, as even a CEO of an errant company would be. You may have heard of Kevin Rudd, if not of the constitution. He apologised as PM. He is not Charles, he is Kevin. Kevin is not a king. Or Aboriginal. Or Lidia. He's not Paul Keating (who is not the governor-general) but who did apologise. Paul is not a king. Or Kevin.

As an Asian-born person, instinctively submissive to autocratic 'strongmen', you may not have heard of personal choice in the service of political gain, or from a deep sense of personal compassion for the aggrieved.

Australian prime ministers - heads of government - can apologise on behalf of the government of the day, which, of course, can be repudiated by a succeeding government.

They can also restrict the apology to just that - requiring no further action.

They can also make personal apologies that do not bind or commit the government of the day, either legally or morally, to that apology or any action that may follow as a result.

Cunning, eh!

I’m no monarchist, but deplore how she spoke to the King. Royalty isn’t the big thing it used to be 50 or 100 years ago. Nowadays, the British Royal family are more like very public philanthropists, as shown in the numerous charities and other good-doing organisations of which they are patron or voice support for. Yes, the King has a constitutional role but it is largely ceremonial today, even in England. For Thorpe to verbally abuse - swearing - at the King does her supposed cause no favours at all. One could argue it detracts from it, with her deplorable actions becoming the story, rather than her cause. I think everyone deserves to be treated with respect, especially when they are a guest in our country and our parliament. Charles did not have to suspend his cancer treatment and travel more than 20 hours by plane to be here. He certainly didn’t need to be verbally abused by a recalcitrant, childish activist Senator who dropped out of school at 14 years old, which explains her breathtaking lack of maturity.

Eckhart,
Like Lidia, you see a man in fancy hat and robe and go weak at the knees and in the head.  Others see a constitutional monarch.
Some want him to interfere while not interfering. They say he does not belong in Oz and is responsible for Oz. Charles doesn't lose his head.

Jesus - don't wake dividie up!    I doubt I could stand his tortuous logic again, over and over all day..  don't mention personal sovereignty or individual rights and individual choices in acceptance of things .... Jesus Christ, man - you'll wake the devil!!

He'll want to Western way destroy their culture by forcing them to jobs, and paternalising them in every way with Western values and handling ... the prisons just couldn't handle the load....

As for politicians - it's time the lazy bastards earned their crust for real and stood up and said where this kind of nonsense ends, once and for all.

Dear old Skanka just reminded me to re-visit the Uluru Statement - he wanted to put across that 'the voice' farce was not included while being included etc - so I pulled up the pages of the Uluru Statement for his perusal and following refusal..... in scanning down the pages I came across another salient point.............. part of the demands in the Uluru Statement was that no settlement or deals made should ever be the end of it......

Page 100 - here are the words:-
"10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements
Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues expressed their concerns that any
constitutional reform must not have the unintended consequence of interfering with beneficial
current arrangements that are already in place in some areas, or with future positive
arrangements that may be negotiated. "

No end in sight.... the voice was only the beginning.... first they figured that being 'mainstreamed' with a separate house in Parliament would mean they had to abide by the same rules as everyone else in land acquisition and all other things like copping royalties and such and even handling in the courts with kid gloves etc.... but at the same time they didn't want the door closed on future land grabs, control over water and resources as they say, and such, forever and a day.  What they don't see today and haven't seen in 50,000 years, they might see tomorrow and still want to claim (think about that for one minute - it'll come to you).

No wonder the Australian people rejected the foundation stone - the 'voice'.... Supremacism at its very worst.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 26^th, 2024 at 11:14am:

Nowadays, the British Royal family are more like very public philanthropists, as shown in the numerous charities and other good-doing organisations of which they are patron or voice support for. Yes, the King has a constitutional role but it is largely ceremonial today, even in England. For

Don't fool yourself. The British monarchy is the most effective soft-power weapon in the world. That single institution has more soft-power influence than just about all other soft-power instruments in the world combined, with the exception of American cultural soft power.

It was not for no reason, nor an act of vanity, that the ancient Elizabeth II expressed her wish and expectation that her heir would assume the role of Head of the Commonwealth upon her death and his accession - The Commonwealth heads of government of the day submitted to her will.

Over the last 30 years, the Commonwealth has increased in its number of members, beyond Britain's former colonies and the monarch's current and former realms, from 52 to 56, to include Mozambique, Rwanda, Gabon and Togo.

Adding to that, South Sudan, Madagascar, Yemen, Algeria, Surinam, Burundi and Somaliland have expressed interest in joining; and Zimbabwe has applied to rejoin.

Charles III doesn't unilaterally decide to travel anywhere - that is determined by the British establishment headed by the British Prime Minister - as Charles flippantly commented recently - 'they sometimes let me out of my cage'.

Thorpe is a COAT - front bottom of A Thing

There are no excuses for her behaviour &  defending her is weak as piss.

She's just a radical Aboractivist - when she berates Charles and his ancestors ....

she berates most of her own.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 26^th, 2024 at 11:14am:

I’m no monarchist, but deplore how she spoke to the King. Royalty isn’t the big thing it used to be 50 or 100 years ago. Nowadays, the British Royal family are more like very public philanthropists, as shown in the numerous charities and other good-doing organisations of which they are patron or voice support for. Yes, the King has a constitutional role but it is largely ceremonial today, even in England. For Thorpe to verbally abuse - swearing - at the King does her supposed cause no favours at all. One could argue it detracts from it, with her deplorable actions becoming the story, rather than her cause. I think everyone deserves to be treated with respect, especially when they are a guest in our country and our parliament. Charles did not have to suspend his cancer treatment and travel more than 20 hours by plane to be here. He certainly didn’t need to be verbally abused by a recalcitrant, childish activist Senator who dropped out of school at 14 years old, which explains her breathtaking lack of maturity.

Yes, agreed.

I too am no monarchist - I was involved with the Australian Republic Movement - but our King doesn't deserve to be treated like that.

And sure, I certainly don't like the fact that he is our King but loudly abusing and swearing at him isn't going to change the fact.

It was appalling behaviour, in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Oct 26^th, 2024 at 11:39am:

It was not for no reason, nor an act of vanity, that the ancient Elizabeth II expressed her wish and expectation that her heir would assume the role of Head of the Commonwealth.

Actually, she really wanted Ponsonby Fotheringham to be head but her Secretary ordered her to let her eldest son be the next monarch and Head. He has soft power and signs treaties when the dreadful Australians aren't looking (during footie finals and so on).

The British monarchy has eclipsed the papacy in its influence on world events.

It would not be a surprise if Buckingham Palace and its immediate surrounding territory became, similar to the Vatican, its own state - independent of the UK - almost certainly if the UK dissolved with its composite nations declaring their independence.

Absolutely, the divine right of the Windsors is a holy estate. They get donations from monarchists and own Australia so the tax bucket is all theirs. Princess Lidia Karen will visit and visit and visit.