Aussies and Kiwis

Hey I hope no one missed the marriage of Charlie and Horse-face, I mean Camilla, our future Queen .

Live right now. Don't miss it.

Hey they arrived at the church in a horse drawn car.



Oh no, oops, it was just Camillia walking in front of it.

Republican , Huh ?

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Hey they arrived at the church in a horse drawn car.

Her family was just pitching in to cut costs

Honestly, they say all brides are beautifull on their wedding day (Bullshit); and besides Charles was more interested in in having a hand wank with Robert Magabi before the cermony.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
Republican , Huh ?

Imagine it one day, King Charles and Queen Camilla of New Zealand ......

Nitro,

And which cat walk do you make *your* living on?

Actually I say good luck to them...pity he did not get to marry her first time around as that was obviously where his heart was...besides any one who hunts, shoots and fishes can't be all that bad, can they?

Regards,

Pete

Pete

How's things?

My comments on Charlie and Camilla are not just on physical attributes. Actually she is probably a far better choice than that useless pyscho superficial, PR stuntster Dianna Spencer. She appears to be a much more down to earth woman with traditional interests such as horse riding, hunting, the country etc.

I think one aspect of the British royal family that is great is how they continue to stalk deer, shoot grouse and peasants, ride in fox hunts or whatever is allowed nowadays. Really sticks it to the PC brigade and Fleet Street media who are continually shocked .

Charlie I see as a great supporter of the British way of life, British industry etc. But yet he would be King of Australia, NZ etc which is obviously a conflict of interest. I have always thought if the monarchists want a true monarchy they should do the Norway thing and invite one of the others in the family to be the 'King' of Australia. But which one? Maybe we could do the Norway thing and invite a Dane as well. But I really feel there would be no way the Australian public could accept a direct Monarch IN Australia. And there lies the fallacy at the core of the monarchist debate. They are fine over there but not over here except for visits.

They just prove to me why of system of choosing individuals by birth for leadership (or whatever, corporate life as well by the way) does not work at all.

No offence meant. They are nominally the Royal family of Australia as well so far. I feel Charlie will be the last even if he makes it to that role.

Nitro X,

Maybe a distant Royal does suits Australians better???

I must admit I don't understant why these things stir up so much controversey...

I don't see that the Royals cause any harm(unlike most Politians) and really they are just a nod to our historic links...If the Royal family were involved in your day to day political process I could understand the resentment. Some folks get hot under the collar about being "subjects", but again I don't see why....when was the last time you recieved a royal command to get of your butt and do something? Peronally, I don't see that my life would be any different in the Monarchy ended tomorrow..London would be a bit more drab, but thats it...

I would ask one question though...what does the Queen cost you guys? I was surprised to learn that Canada still pays tax to the UK which is then sent back to Canada to help with the up keep of Royal residences ect...That seems some how wrong even to me...

Regards,

Pete

While you guys are aluding to the question of whether we should keep our monarchy, or not, I'll throw my two cents worth into the discussion.

I hope that 'King' Charles and 'Queen' Camilla are the symbolic heads of Australia for many, many years after old Liz finally shuffles of this mortal coil!

Does this mean that I am a monarchist? Well, no, ....far from it....not at all. But for Australia to become a republic would mean a major re-write of our constitution and would you trust little Johnny Hitler (oops, sorry, meant to write Howard) and any of his henchmen re-writing our constitution? At the same time, I can't think of anyone in the Labor party that I would want to give the same power too, and the thought of the Greens or Democrats being involved is far too frightening to contemplate.

I can tell you now that we would lose so many rights, all in the name or a republic, that you wouldn't even recognise Australia when they were finished.

Particularly from a shooters point of view, I think that the main defence that we have to prevent John Howard banning all firearms is our constitutional right to compensation (legally established by two precedents - the two buybacks). It cost the Australian taxpayer a huge amount to buy back the semi-auto rifles and shotguns and many handguns, but can you imagine the cost if they had to buy out everything that is left?

If they ever got their hands on the constitution, with an excuse to change it, you can bet that would be the first thing that they would re-write, or delete! Once they no longer have to pay compensation, then you can bet they would go the last step and ban ALL guns!

Bob

Good points. Never trust a politician.

Of course if the only thing done which was to replace the head of state ie the Queen with a governor general appointed by a joint sitting of both houses of Parliament, then almost no changes to the constitution would be neede.

Your distrust is one of the reasons a republic vote is continuing to fail, and for good reason.

The last republic vote I voted for the republic, because I knew the vote would be lost anyway. I did NOT at all like the republic model that John Howard engineered into the referundum.

You are 100% right. There is no party in parliament that can be trusted today to change wholesale constitutional changes.

***

Pete

I believe the Australian government pays for the costs of Royal visits such as Charlie's 'competitive marketing' visit this year at the same time as the Danish crown prince and princess. Also Harry's holiday in Oz a year or so ago.

I don't believe the government pays a stipend to the Royal Family. Certainly the much raking media has never complained about it. They do maintain various Government houses which are residences of the Governor General and State Governors, but these are more realisticly Australian political positions in modern times. The Royal family does utilise them during visits.

For me the monarchy and republic are nationalist concepts. I think our flag is a far more important issue than the monarchy in any case.

I'm led to beleve.That Liz's wedding prez to the blushing "Newlyweds".Was a Black car & a trip to France .Though on a serious note did their getting married really change the rotation of the Earth?Hey if their happy so what?I think we've got more important issues herein Auz (Like Jack boot Johnny Howard and his merry band of Morons to worry about.)

In the referendum on the monarchy I voted for the monarchy as I hope we never become a republic. As for Charles and Camilla, I might be wrong but I think they will grow in stature with time. I like Charles and his views don't know much about Camilla, but if she is pro hunting shes right with me.
Just think what kind of republic we would have, Midnight Oil for president or perhaps Kylie would be better?