The Forum > General Discussion > Princess William
Princess William
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 29 April 2011 11:34:27 PM
| |
Would that be along the same lines as Princess Michael of Kent?....she's been around for yonks using her hubbies moniker.
(apparently her maiden name and title was Baroness Marie Christine Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz - a German-Hungarian) Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 30 April 2011 9:49:46 AM
| |
Ludwig, I must admit I watched some of the wedding proceedings, and was impressed with William and Kate in that they seemed to be much more happy and casual about the whole thing than other royals before them.
I hadn't heard about Kate being called Princess William though. I heard them called the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge after they were married? If I was Kate, I would go with this title when introducing myself! Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 30 April 2011 10:25:20 AM
| |
no worries ludwig
you will catch the endless replays even i eventually got caught-up with the right royal destraction cathrine[not kate]..looked devine ok pretty annorexic looking..but all brides look thin william looked annimic[pale and sickly]..so he might well be ill [sorry kate...opps cathy] i would recomend prospective grooms catch a bit of sun in the week before getting married[dont like the spray on tan..except where the bride is wearing a low cut bosum's] i liked the suggestion of nipple's sewn into the brides attire..and the modest length of the bride-s/train the white brides maids[hostess attendants] ..was a revolutionary touch..and the serving of pate' in lue of a hundred dollar..a plate meal..also is a trend worth addopting i didnt like the murded maples [why if her coat of arms is three acorns would she sek the murder of innocent maple trees] far better would have been some sprouting oak trees that could have been planted in a wedding memorial garden[for-rest] of extreem spiritual strength and memorium..of what is presumed to be an important day i will say i saw the hint of a baby lump but that might be related to the puffy nipple design[of her dress] [it is hoped pregnant brides dont starve them selves..as its bad for the kid] anyhow the sydney morning herald has some great takes on the whole monarchy thing[worthy of a new topic]..but as for the nuptuals.. been there seen the replays no doudt will see many more over the next few days so now lets get back to the other news like how the 'cloud' has lost vast ammounts of peoples data or the state of govt debt..or the flotilla..on its way to gaza... or that topic..about the cost of refugees being put up in 5 star digs..and what was the other one? what was that..really important news? oh well i guess that...will survive..till tomorrow but will wil? Posted by one under god, Saturday, 30 April 2011 11:19:59 AM
| |
Ludwig,
I am not into royal titles and things but, You may find the Duchess of Cambridge (her official title) will be known as Princess Kate, in the same way that Diana was known as Princess Di. One commentator said that they wish to be known as William and Kate. I saw the boys arrive at the abby, then had to go out. When i returned the couple was just leaving and the procession was a magnificant specticle. I reckon about 2 hundred horses. Kate looked divine and her sister, bridesmaid, nearly stole the show with her dress. Nice looking sheila as well. Even our PM looked almost passable. I was impressed the way the two Princes saluted each regiment of the honour guard as they passed and saluted the Royal standard when entering the palace. That shows they have respect for others. I also was very impressed the way the police controlled the massive crowd that walked to the gates of the palace,after the service and procession. That is the way civilized people conduct themselves. One could not mistake the OH WOW from Kate as they stepped onto the balcony and she saw the massive crowd gathered. You may have been impressed with the flypast of the 3 WW11 planes, closely followed by the modern Jet fighters. I was looking to see if our Mary and Frederick were among the foreign royals. They may have been, but maybe old news now. All in all, a nice change from the death and destruction, angry crowds and mayhem of ordinary news. The Poms do parades and ceremony very well. Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 30 April 2011 2:15:11 PM
| |
Ludwig, yes, it must be very distressing to see the growing lack of interest from the Australian electorate for a Republic. Every justification I guess, for a mealy mouthed hissy fit directed at the “weird British Royals”.
Not that I have much time for aristocracy but they do have their uses, ceremonial, constitutional, tourism and entertainment value. Yes it is only your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to express it however, for at least 2 billion humans on this planet, there was enthusiasm, excitement, history in the making and entertainment. As for you Mr. Grumble Bum? You just wanted to stir the “loser’s pot” didn’t you? Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 1 May 2011 10:18:11 AM
| |
It is possible to be a Republic and still enjoy the spectacle of the Royals. The Americans who had a war with Britain to gain independence still love their dose of Royal pageantry. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Even the Queen is encouraging Australia to get a move on towards the inevitable. Posted by pelican, Sunday, 1 May 2011 11:06:37 AM
| |
I thought Kate looked fantastic. She conducted herself with dignity and class. Her sister Pippa looked great too. The way that Kate lowered her eyes as William saluted the guards, showed me that this lady knows her stuff. She has more class than many of the actual Royal family members (not bad for a commoner). But this should be a positive day for everyone, so well done Kate. Look after her William, she's a keeper!
As for the Republicans; well it's the same old tripe over and over again. Come up with some solid reasons why we should become a republic (and I mean real benefits to the Australian people as a whole, not just your usual bitching and moaning routine) and I'll listen to you. Actually, I probably won't listen to you at all. The fact of the matter is that when Queen Elizabeth II ends her reign (for whatever reason) THAT will be the time for us to consider our Republican options. Until then she remains the Queen of Australia. Posted by Radar, Monday, 2 May 2011 8:06:21 PM
| |
*Radar* you seem to be confused. *Lizzie Winza* is the individual who signed off on the destruction of Australian families and the kidnapping of children, otherwise known as the "Stolen Generations," amongst her other possible "Crimes against Humanity."
Is that not correct? Is she not the individual who approved the "forcible transference of children from one group to another?" At the very least, that's playing it a bit fast and loose with the "Genocide Convention Act" don't you think? And that after the HORRORS of WWII. OOOoooooo! How disgustingly awful! I call it, "The Tin Pot Law of the Transplanted Genocidal Pom." Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 11:02:46 AM
| |
The following is an extract from Australia's Claytons Constitution:
PART III - THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (Provision as to races disqualified from voting.) 25. For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. .. CHAPTER VII - MISCELLANEOUS 127. Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population (Repealed by No.55, 1967, s.3) Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 12:03:36 PM
| |
Pelican, you wrote;
<< It is possible to be a Republic and still enjoy the spectacle of the Royals. >> Yes. That’s what we’ve got now, for intents and purposes isn’t it? I mean, in what significant way is Australia not a republic? << Come up with some solid reasons why we should become a republic (and I mean real benefits to the Australian people as a whole, not just your usual bitching and moaning routine) and I'll listen to you. >> My sentiments exactly, Radar. If we are to officially become a republic, I want to know how it would be significantly different and better than what we’ve got now. Otherwise, forget it! We’ll just have to put up with King Bigears after Liz departs! I’d prefer that to some half-baked republic which doesn’t do anything to get our daft political masters off of their addiction to never-ending continuous growth and onto a sustainability-based platform, and quite likely even entrenches the expansionist paradigm even more than it is now, if that is possible! THAT is the essential change that we need in Australian politics, economics and social thinking. If a republic can’t do it or at least take us more that direction, then there is NO POINT in becoming a republic! Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 3 May 2011 1:30:41 PM
| |
Ludwig,
"THAT is the essential change that we need in Australian politics, economics and social thinking. If a republic can’t do it or at least take us more that direction, then there is NO POINT in becoming a republic!" That is the way I feel too. I found the wedding quite a pleasant chenge from the norm, but am no monachist. I want the republicans to show that we will benefit from the change, not go to all that expense for nothing. Our system is not perfect butt here are a hell of a lot worse. I'm not into buying a 'pig in a poke'. If they can't demonstrate an advantage, then forget a republic. Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:22:12 PM
| |
2011 MODEL for AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC
Elect a President >>> Retain the Governor General The President replaces the Queen in the Constitution. The Governor General carries out the same day-to-day Constitutional duties as they do today, authorising appointments, regulations and acts of parliament. But, the Governor General ceases all ceremonial duties, ceases to be Commander-in-chief, ceases to meet Ambassadors and Heads of State. The President like the Queen, can only appoint or dismiss the Governor General upon the strict advice of the Prime Minister. The present relationship between a Prime Minister and the Governor General are maintained, a Prime Minister would still be required to drive to Yarralumla to call an election. The President could not directly remove a Prime Minister, but a Prime Minister with control of both Houses could remove a President. This Model should put an end to arguments about a conflict between an appointed Prime Minister and an elected President. Posted by Sense, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:41:51 PM
| |
any new model cannot be done
but what we can do is sepperate the powers the reason why i put here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4432&page=0 freespeach does compensate for the lack..of an actual political choice..[re voting] when i voted..i voted blindly..mostly for people i have never met on a short blurb they put in the local paper..or the party but as both parties develop the same loyalties to bid money and advised by the same corrupted public service.. who we dont get to pick... who tell govt whats what..usually via lying to them.. or restrixcting their info..[see latest post here] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4443&page=0 where im now convinced obama's witness of osama's look alikes exicution...was photo shopped..in live time..[think michael jorden playing with himself] as was done to george busche before him [he was so certain..it seems the way security agencies get them onside] in short i feel we need to sepperate powers pm's presidents..gov generals..should oversee not make decisions..guided by a skeptical privey council..[thats why they arnt in the constitution] anyhow i need the wisdom of posters need to hear the contrasting facts i know there was a murdering scccccum bag in russia by his works wether it was lenin..or marx...isnt as important as knowing.. whoever done it..was advised*..to do it [and they *never get held to account] its THEM..that is the only real and present danger only by removing their acces to the true powers [and armed forces/police/judges] ....can things ever..*hope to change anyhow im not concerned with the acts of men im more intrested in knowing..and making known..the only truth [the love grace mercy...GOOD of god] that im forced to reveal the insanity of our leaders advisers is the only way i can see..to end their GENOCIDING the human race.. that god for some reason loves well...im only..trying to serve him it would be so much easier to hate but my god is loveing..man what-else to do? Posted by one under god, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:10:59 AM
| |
I'll admit it. I watched it, and thoroughly enjoyed it. As for Princess William, well, it's little things like that which give a nation some character. I've always been amused by Princess Michael, who seems quite fine with her name.
I'm also on the side of those who are waiting to hear how a republican model will be directly beneficial to the Australian people. In particular, I'm concerned about a popularly elected president, largely because - even with the best intentions - we would inevitably turn it into the self-promotional media circus that the filthy rich presidential candidates of the USA enjoy every few years. If a republic came in the form of a simple amendment whereby the Governor-General was no longer a representative of the monarchy but carried out exactly the same roles under the same conditions, I'd probably vote for it. It would be labelled a 'Clayton's Republic', but at least it would be business as usual. The problem with our nation's political system isn't (in my opinion) the system itself, but rather the people populating it. Our system has worked well in the past, and will work well in the future, if we become a bit more discerning in our choices of leaders. Maybe it would help if people with greater integrity and ability offered their services. Until then, republic or otherwise, we'll still have opportunities to moan about our pollies while remaining a successful nation. Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 5 May 2011 11:48:13 PM
| |
When people say mean spirited, personal things against the Royal Family, including name calling, it usually says a whole lot more about the people making the comments than the Royal Family itself.
Posted by Nhoj, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:18:40 PM
| |
Such a terrible history of child abuse in Australia.
.. But this warms (a little) the cockles of my heart: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/09/3211746.htm .. " ... Lawyers seek to free children in detention By Eric Tlozek Updated 3 hours 17 minutes ago It is thought the children were working as crew on either people-smuggling or illegal fishing boats. ( Related Story: Progress in moving kids from detention centres) ( Related Story: Govt tight-lipped on child detainees) Northern Territory lawyers have used a rare legal measure in a bid to free 13 Indonesian children in immigration detention. ... " .. Still, I must admit that I was superficially pleased at Harry's apparent abject disgust that the lion's share of charity funds was not ending up with the intended beneficiaries, and also by another effort in concert with William alerting us to the fact that his *Brothers in Arms* were getting blowing up by Chinese munitions. However ... I think it was a good idea when someone suggested a 1 question referendum first to remove the race power from the Constitution and another to make the Guvna General the new Australian Head of State of Australia. That would get the ball rolling nicely. Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 9 May 2011 8:21:01 PM
|
I’ve got no problem with this event, or the enormous interest that it has generated in Australia and around the world, but really, I’d rather watch paint dry than watch the proceedings!
It’s all good, ‘cept for one thing – poor old Kate is now going to be known as William! Or at least, she is going to be officially known as Princess William of Wales!
She apparently can’t be known as Princess Catherine as she is not of royal stock, or some silly reason like that.
Well, that is flabbergastingly ludricrous! I think those weird British Royals have really put their silly looking foot in the poo this time!
Your thoughts?