Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree11Likes
  • 4 Post By robusto
  • 1 Post By OCD
  • 1 Post By Jackster
  • 1 Post By robusto
  • 2 Post By TampIt
  • 2 Post By Rocky

Thread: The Monarchy is a Sham

  1. #1
    Senior Member robusto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    The Monarchy is a Sham

    Gene Cafe Coffee Roaster $850 - Free Beans Free Freight
    With Harry and Meghan deciding royal life isn't for them, maybe time to look at the British monarchy.

    From the outset let me say I am a republican, anti-monarchist.

    The monarchs of Britain have not ruled as monarchs traditionally rule, since 1688.
    The whole royal thing is a sham, a pretence, a vestige of history.

    There is no power which comes with the title.
    The monarch does not make laws for the benefit or detriment of "subjects".
    The monarch does not preside over a judicial court to apportion justice.
    The monarch does not defend the populace from invading hoards.
    The monarch has every public speech written for him or her.
    Including the one where the monarch presides over the opening of parliament reading Westminster's legislative agenda.

    So when people want the powerless queen of England to continue being the queen of Australia, what exactly do they want from her?

    The notion that a country -- or an empire -- can be passed on to the eldest male as though it were a family chattel beggars belief.
    Charles hanging in there to become king -- for what material reason?

    The titles -- The Duke of here, The Duchess of there, the Marquis of ...

    This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.

    We are in effect a republic, so let's cast adrift from Britain,
    and Britain should cast the superfluous monarchy adrift as well.

    They serve no purpose but to bolster tourism, sell New Idea magazines, and life a lifestyle disproportionate to their function.
    Last edited by robusto; 10th January 2020 at 09:51 AM. Reason: add Meghan to first line
    OCD, chippy, SanderP and 1 others like this.

  2. #2
    OCD
    OCD is online now
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    400
    For those with an uncontrollable urge to defer to their "betters" it beats religions or dictators.
    Not a great fan of all the obsequious grovelling myself, but hey, each to their own.

    Ps having said that, I must admit to having a soft spot for Harry.
    Dimal likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Maddington, Perth. Wa
    Posts
    1,112
    If there is going to be a change, it will benefit a few, at the cost of many. It always does
    Dimal likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rockingham W.A.
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by robusto View Post
    With Harry and deciding royal life isn't for them, maybe time to look at the British monarchy.

    From the outset let me say I am a republican, anti-monarchist.

    The monarchs of Britain have not ruled as monarchs traditionally rule, since 1688.
    The whole royal thing is a sham, a pretence, a vestige of history.

    So when people want the powerless queen of England to continue being the queen of Australia, what exactly do they want from her?

    The notion that a country -- or an empire -- can be passed on to the eldest male as though it were a family chattel beggars belief.
    Charles hanging in there to become king -- for what material reason?

    The titles -- The Duke of here, The Duchess of there, the Marquis of ...

    This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.

    We are in effect a republic, so let's cast adrift from Britain,
    and Britain should cast the superfluous monarchy adrift as well.

    They serve no purpose but to bolster tourism, sell New Idea magazines, and life a lifestyle disproportionate to their function.
    G'day robusto

    Tell that to any Australian who remembers what happened to Gough Whitlam. That in itself is reason enough to give them the flick by yesterday.

    Mind you, as a fellow republican, I still resent the referendum John Howard rigged (look up what the committee suggested and what he personally changed before you comment on this). I was forced to choose between having EiiR or the Oz Parliament choose the figurehead - jobs for the boys, by the boys and to benefit the boys. So I had to vote for the status quo and wait for a serious choice "down the track". Over 80% of Oz citizen's want a republic, but not on those terms.

    Yep, removing both the Brit royals and the "K family" from the media would be a significant cultural benefit. Perhaps people would start learning about "slightly more relevant things" like coping with climate change, droughts, floods and bushfires. "Tell me I'm dreamin'..."

    TampIt
    Taken from a 1950s or 1960s Readers Digest at my late grandmother's place "The problem with most political jokes is that they get elected".

  5. #5
    Senior Member robusto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,098
    Tampit, that 1999 referendum -- I remember it well because I watched the live feed of the daily proceedings in the preceding constitutional convention --- was so convoluted and so fraught with difficult questions for voters to address. It wasn't so much about whether we should be a republic, but what sort of head of state we should have and how he/she should be chosen.

    The history of referendums show that when in doubt, The public mainly votes "no" and sticks with the familiar status quo.
    chippy likes this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rockingham W.A.
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by robusto View Post
    Tampit, that 1999 referendum -- I remember it well because I watched the live feed of the daily proceedings in the preceding constitutional convention --- was so convoluted and so fraught with difficult questions for voters to address. It wasn't so much about whether we should be a republic, but what sort of head of state we should have and how he/she should be chosen.

    The history of referendums show that when in doubt, The public mainly votes "no" and sticks with the familiar status quo.
    G'day again robusto

    I agree - glad to hear some one else was interested enough to follow the process, only to see it trumped.

    That referendum should simply have asked "Should Oz be a republic?" (one of the committee's recommendations) with an undertaking to explore all the models and put that to a referendum later. Howard being a monarchist (apart from a lot of other less flattering labels like, IMO, unethical megalomaniac) deliberately personally nuked the referendum by providing an utterly unacceptable "yes" to vote on.

    I admit surprise that their hasn't been a rerun yet.

    TampIt
    robusto and chippy like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member robusto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,098
    Paul Keating started the ball rolling out of the blue as a pre-election diversion from economic woes, and your mate John Howard ended it to his discredit.

    But it's not just a republic for Australia I'm advcoating...I want this whole monarchy thing gone.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,202
    Common sense suggests to me that a "monarchy" should only exist as long as it is able to physically beat the masses into submission, and that as soon as it was unable to maintain control it would be dispensed with rapidly.
    That the Brits have been happy to financially sustain this extended family of freeloaders for so long beggars belief.
    It has always seemed to me that the Queen, Charles and a few other selected 'royals' are fairly decent people but that still doesn't entitle them and their offspring to sponge on society forever.
    I felt sorry for Harry when he got involved with the Yank. There is a precedent for this. I always said he would regret it and I think that is certainly written in the stars.
    I personally wouldn't walk across the road to see any of them but half the world gets it's escapism by following what 'celebrities' are doing to/with/for each other.
    If they want to visit here that is fine as long as they pay for their holiday themselves, and of course they shouldn't have any part in our parliamentary process.
    The French have always had a lot of bad press (mainly from the Brits) but I have always thought the French got a lot of things right and if the Brits ever enact the French solution, I'll have dibs on Charles' blue Aston Martin.
    Dimal and robusto like this.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •