Well yes! why should the British Royal family, its self imported from Germany rule in any way over us.
Banana Republics will get a run if this thread does, but remember America is a Republic.
Is it time we cut the apron strings? say thank you will always be our friend but we are leaving home?

Charles seems quite a decent chap . The missus has a grin so yeah , give him a run. Bill and Scomo's mob have had too long at the wicket.

What would be the first available benefits to us ordinary folk ?
The hierarchy will still fleece us I'd imagine that will never change.

Apathetic mob are we not? Kings came from tribal chiefs but at least the chief had to be strong enough to protect his tribe.
Charlie may have trouble defending his lunch
PRIDE in our own country should be enough

Definitely NO to a politician's republic.

Definitely NOT,
we have one of the best political systems, How many Westminster countries have had a civil war? None, How many republics have had a civil war? all of them.

What a waste of money, the previous push for a republic estimated the cost at $10 billion dollars, so today you could easily double that and add some. I would rather $20-30 billion be spent on hospitals, better roads and our lifestyle, than waste it on becoming a republic.

Apart from someone becoming a president , why change?
does it help our trade with other countries? Does it help reduce unemployment? Or help reduce hospital waiting times. In fact there is no logical reason to waste billions of dollars.

Admiral Lord Majesty Charlie would spend 6 months on Pacific station and signing his Australian laws then nip back to the old country . As of August 2018, there are 74 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy.
The Royal Australian Navy consists of nearly 50 commissioned vessels . 124 locked and loaded .
V2 Rocket and Meillerwagen (Germany) | The Australian War Memorial
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C111276
German V2 rocket on on a Meillerwagen launching trailer. The rocket is largely complete, with two gyroscopes in its control compartment, fuel tanks and turbine ...

Republic? Nah, bugger that, constitutional monarchy seems to work better.

Of course, there's no reason we need to keep the British royal family. We could have an Australian one instead.

Dear Belly,

Not sure about this until I find out what we're
going to replace it with.

We could top up the coffers by having a lottery for an Australian monarch.
Prerequisites are no academic background & no public servant.
That should guarantee a very good King. We already have way too many Queens.

Belly,

"Charlie may have trouble defending his lunch"

Suggest that you read up about Charles, you might surprise yourself with new found knowledge.

The story of Woolungah
‘This is what Billy Saddler says is
the correct Blackfellow name for
Wollongong. He says the name
“Woolungah” means a place where a
marriage took place between the son of one
great King and the daughter of another
great King in the olden days, long before
Captain Cook found this country.
He explains that the word also
means that there was a great
feast of fish and other good
things at the wedding, which
was such a remarkable event
that the place was named on
account of it afterwards.’
(Bill Saddler, Illawarra Mercury 20 Nov 1894)

China has some spares . "There's considerable curiosity in China about those remaining royal family members, but their existence does not carry the same cachet as elsewhere, perhaps because of decades of anti-imperialist indoctrination by communists. The relatives hardly ever get together, and even less often in public.. But as a whole, they say they're not proud of having him as a relative — or of having royal blood.

"I don't tell people I'm related to the last emperor," said Guo, who almost chose not to attend Thursday's event. "I just wanted to be a regular person."

Well not even slightly surprised we will not talk about the issue.
Not even sure nicknamenick is not one under God, however only the letter T separates a Witt from a Twit.
Out there in the real world this topic is again on the agenda.
Seems we would already have one if politicians, on both sides, had not tried to make it, head of state a job for themselves.
NO not making war on England, it will always be the country that got us started.
But why do we need to pay for another trip here by chinless wonders who, as Philip, Abbotts dream boat Knight, often puts us down.
What is wrong about being proud of our country?
Are we only to talk about how dreadful any thing or one who is not to the far right of reality is?
In the world outside numbers are near even and we will be voting about this within ten years England will not be wiped from the face of the earth if we go it on our own they too will remain part of our history

Belly,
You have forgotten that we have already voted on this and decided what we have is better and cheaper.

I think you have ran out of political subjects to talk about.

No one is interested! Look for some worthwhile subject to talk about.

The Socialist Democratic Republic of Australia.

Italy had a Royal family.They left and Mafia took over.
For two decades after the royals left. Italy had unstable government.
If President Hawke had taken over after the Republic referendum.
Australia would now have close links with China and Myanmar.
(Google search Bob Hawke and the Burmese junta.)
Hawke was the world spokesman on behalf of the Burmese Junta.

Oh.Remember....South Africa.....Their currency the Rand has dropped since it became a republic .
One Rand was equal to One Aussie dollar when it became a Republic.
Today One Rand is worth ten cents Australian.

So to all the people who want a Republic.
Your dollar will be worth ten cents and you will finish up like South Africans working for peanuts.

The Italian Mafia republic ran Britain 1600 years ago and had glass windows , marble floors and 10c peanut fast food. Then got royalty and the rest is history. George III was insane and made the Australia we know and love.

Yes, Banjo. The republic business had been done to death. Belly is certainly desperate for topics.

If it ain’t broken don’t try and fix it

Banjo truth is I have about a thousand but tried to stay away from the subject for a while.
Yes we voted and only the fact both sides of politics tried to hijack the whole thing stopped us already being there.
try to be nice, please understand it is my view, you have the IQ of a grasshopper at best, no one else here is any trouble,get your carers opinion.
this subject in the real world is seeing both sides splitting the opinion polls but we will have a referendum within ten years
a thought, is it ok in a free to post forum to post ideas others do not share?
or are we damned forever to post only non-representative right of reality opinions?

Belly,
You are the one outside the real world.

Fact is no one gives a rats about the subject, happy as is.

Put up one real reason or economic reason why we should even think about it. How would we be better off after spending all the money to change?

You used to be practical, not so now.

Belly,

How's the reading on Charles going?

Surprised yourself yet?

"PRINCE Charles has refused to submit evidence to a child sexual abuse inquiry in the UK that is examining how allegations against a disgraced former Church of England bishop were handled.

The inquiry is currently hearing evidence relating to abuse carried out by Peter Ball, who knew the prince and exchanged letters with him.

Lawyers for the Prince of Wales used human rights law to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement instead sending a signed letter, The Telegraph reports.

Fiona Scolding, lead counsel to the investigation into the Anglican Church, said that his lawyers had previously argued that compelling him to give evidence was outside its powers."

When the pants are down and it's backs to the wall, the finest hour and never surrender , not in front of the servants.

There must be a vice-president otherwise how would there be a leadership challenge in the middle of the appointment ? Let's hope the footy and cricket teams can change captains if he drops the score-rate. Kids can text for a new bus-driver if he crunches his gears.

Banjo! I offer this *the ALP, Mr Bill Shorten, has promised in his first term*
TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON SHOULD WE BECOME A REPUBLIC.
So we will be talking about it even more, in real life.
Banjo we do not agree much, yet I have nothing against you, but consider this.
Are we restrict ourselves to popular subjects? if so who says they are indeed popular?
Would it be good for the site if new comers stayed or left thinking all we do is abuse each other?
Over the years I have tried to contribute to every thread, not able now to do that in threads by one poster, we all should be free to comment, as you have, about a thread being, not one we like, but please do not tell me not to post it.

Banjo OK with that? your demand I not post? my showing you it is a subject the whole country will be talking about.
PLEASE set out YOUR rules for what can and can not become a thread

The rebuttal of a republic was very certain at the referendum. Perhaps the would-be wreckers of our perfectly good system might think that the mass immigration they so much love might change the vote when enough immigrants are granted citizenship and the right to vote.

But, you wreckers, how many immigrants have fled from countries with monarchies?

Trumps' republicans did , and the Irish . Parliament did when Charles ( the other one) lost his head. Yemen wants to escape but the Saudi king is bombing them.

Belly,

"But why do we need to pay for another trip here by chinless wonders who, as Philip, Abbotts dream boat Knight, often puts us down"

Who are the chinless wonders, one wonders?

We're all ears for Belly. Let's hear a reasoned explanation from you old son about the benefits and necessity for an Oz wizard. Also the disadvantages of course that's fair.

Well I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll happily take moistened bints lobbing scimitars at people over Dennis and his anarcho-syndicalist commune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

An army marches on its belly _ N Bonaparte, on short rations in Czarist Russia.

I definitely say NO!
I am a monarchist.
Yeah, I know.
A WOG Monarchist?
The main reason is, this country, like all the other Commonwealth countries, were 'acquired' by the then rulers of England.
Australia actually 'belongs to The Queen.
Now it will be nigh-on impossible for some of you to understand this.
But I, and millions of others who have worked and saved money and bought property and assets and in doing so set ourselves up, so that we never have to take other people's money, will understand what I'm saying.
So you can see how people who have achieved self reliance, get pissed off when some twat suggests we pay billions to a group of 'transients' who have no problem in stealing money from the rest of us by pushing one of the biggest con jobs in Australian history.
Australia does NOT belong to the abo's.
Never did.
They are 'ITINERANTS'.
Google the meaning.
So enough of this crap about their traditional lands, blah, blah.
We all know who they are and where they came from.
Just because they happened to be here when Australia was 'taken over', means squat in the topic of ownership.
The abo's didn't OWN anything before the poms came.
They were just passing through.
They only ended up staying because any attempt to go any further was impossible, because they ran out of land.
Tasmania.
So began the walk-about stories, or as I see it, 'the walk about in circles'.
Now a Republic is only going to give the thieves in Canberra and their mates the keys to the safe.
If you think we are being gouged now, just wait till we become a Republic.
Be grateful that we have 'Mummy' to run to when the scum in Canberra get too far out of line.
Remember Whitlam the scumbag?
So before you Republicans go any further, stop and think, we will have NO protections in place when the thieves decide to have a free-for-all with your money and your families future.

//Be grateful that we have 'Mummy' to run to when the scum in Canberra get too far out of line.//

Actually, you don't. Not since the Australia Act 1986, which blocked appeals to the Privy Council.

Nothing can save the Governor general who is personally responsible for sacking Whitlam , Rudd , Gillard , Abbott , Turnbull , Guthrie and Milne and sand papered the ball.

Is today's richest country suffering because they are a Republic?
America is in deep trouble but not because it wanted to be its own country.
Will Brexit take place? still some doubt, if England stays are we then ruled by the EU? are we a state of that place.
NO but this much is true the case put here against becoming a republic is just as silly.
Also right now those Australians, as seen in online polling, who support leaving are a majority, but not enough to get it up.
I am reminded of the case against day light saving in our deep north, it fades the curtains, the cows are confused, the days are too long the extra sun drys things out.

Belly,

Daylight saving does fade the curtains and causes the furniture to age quicker, ditto the carpets; and it is the extra sunlight that does it.

Toni, who do you think the Governor General works for?
Why do new PM's have to firstly go to the UK and ASK for her 'permission' to be the new PM of Australia?
Yes ASK.
Sorry Toni, we are still tied to 'mummy's' apron strings, and as long as we have these filthy con-men in Canberra, I much prefer the status quo.
As bad as our current system is, with it's many faults and flaws, a Republic will be many times worse (for the people).
I don't want to try it (become a republic) to find out I am right.
Let's just tidy up our current system.

Belly,
I do not demand anything of you. I simply inform you that the subject you raise is a dead issue as no one is interested. Take that in any way you wish.

As for what Shorten has said, well Opposition leaders say lots of things and 'forget' a lot when it suits them.

Have a look at the European thread, there are lots of matters occupying peoples minds at the present and immigration is in the forefront. Labor would do well to concentrate some effort in that regard.

Are we rule by the EU ? The Queen is when ordering bear-skin hats for the lads at palace.
CITES Permits
Bear skin rugs, wolf rugs, and some taxidermy mounts require CITES permits. CITES permits can take up to 2-3 weeks for us to acquire.

EU CITES permits
European Union shipments of CITES listed animals (bears) require import permits

Belly,

Just what are the advantages for the ordinary folk in Australia of it becoming a republic?

Just one improvement will be enough.

Is Mse,

I already asked belly that, no reply. That is why there is no public interest. There is no advantage and nothing to gain.

See page 4.

Am Australian head of state always Ismise/Banjo, no need to bend our knee to the head of any other country.
Ending the thought England ever had any right to colonise forever any country.
Being proud to be AUSTRALIAN
Banjo, within three years we will be voting in a referendum on this very subject.

WHEREAS it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy Our Late Sovereign Lord, King George the Sixth,: We, therefore, Sir William John McKell, Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia , proclaim Elizabeth Queen of this realm , Supreme Liege Lady in and over the Commonwealth of Australia,.

She was not crowned Queen of Oz and Australia's changing the 1953 contract in mid-stream started the rot. McKell was not the almighty and Liz didn't thank him for it. Charles needs to get his act together and sensible head-wear is a start.

Here is a link that lists and explains nine things
that we should know about a potential Australian
Republic. It's worth considering:

http://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759

No.

Is easier to explain with history the need to beware the pretenders, the conspirators, with history stories.

.

Belly,

"Am Australian head of state always Ismise/Banjo, no need to bend our knee to the head of any other country.
Ending the thought England ever had any right to colonise forever any country.
Being proud to be AUSTRALIAN "

So, how does that help the ordinary Australian?
Are you finding it hard to give a coherent answer?

How's the study of Prince Charles going?
Found any 'chinless wonders' yet?

//Why do new PM's have to firstly go to the UK and ASK for her 'permission' to be the new PM of Australia?//

They don't.

//Sorry Toni, we are still tied to 'mummy's' apron strings//

No, not in sense except the purely symbolic. The UK has no legal power over us, and they haven't for a while now.

It seems to me like you received your education in civics a long time ago, and have since steadfastly resisted updating it because it's completely unheard of for facts to change or something. I know you tend to take it as some sort of personal affront when people correct you, so I'll leave it there.

Foxy's link showed the opinion of one person, namely a uni lecturer from Charles Sturt Uni. I can see at least one glaring fault in item 4. The vote on the form of a republic in 1999 was the form recomended by the republicans when Turnbull was the head. It was not the form chosen by the government of the day.

What republicans say now is to just vote for a republic and leave asside the form or method. Who, in their right mind, would trust present day politicians to do that and write a new constitution. The present constitution has been our only saving grace for years and there is no way we should give politicians any free leave to fiddle with it.

Our mistrust of politicians is best illustrated by the fact that they altered the wording of our national anthem after we decided which song we wanted. They simply introduced multiculturalism without any consultation with us and we have never had any say on immigration levels, yet these matters have a profound effect on all.

Now the republicans say we should trust them, yeah like car salesmen!

//Found any 'chinless wonders' yet?//

It's a turn of phrase, Is Mise, not supposed to be taken literally.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chinless_wonder#Noun
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chinless%20wonder

Obviously people with receding chins still have chins.

But going off the definitions provided - upper-class English males who gain their positions through nepotism rather than competence - the Prince of Wales certainly seems to fit the bill. He's about as upper-class as it's possible to be, English, male, and attained his position through nepotism.

Although to be fair to Charles, he doesn't seem that chinless in the literal sense. And in the figurative sense he's not half as chinless as upper-class twits like Jacob Rees-Mogg, who I believe has been recently honoured with a place in the Upper-Class Twit of the Year Hall of Fame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imWlSMgMFGE

Prince of Wales attained his position through nepotism.
Wrong , nepotism was the choice to give Trump $200,000 at age 3.
Nepotism is giving Princess Anne the key to the Crown and glass beads that little girls love to dress up in. Or else handing the job as chief hand-waver to Sammy Smithers the cleft-palate boy of the 3rd back foot-man .

Well we tried, for a thread that was said not worth posting we got a few posts.
Next year or the one after we get to talk about it in the big boys world.
And in that debate the question will not be show me how we benefit
but show me why not, powered by a love of our country, not hate of England, we will go very close to becoming a Republic, our first head of state? if it was tomorrow I offer these as people who would fit, Julie Bishop
Kevin Rudd
Noel Pearson
And [TIC] Emma Alberici

Belly, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Hell NO! Yuck. I think I'm gonna be sick.

" in that debate the question will be show me why not,."
Why can't that be the question today? Just ask it : why not. Not that hard ,just make it a question . Although grammatically speaking "show me" is not strictly a question , is it ? I mean , is it?

Toni, whenever a new govt is formed, and it is a change of govt, say, Libs to Lab, the new PM has to go and ASK permission to run the country.
And she IS the queen of Australia.
She still holds sway over us and our military and parliament.
She does all this through the Governor General.
The GG is her guy on the ground.
Google it, what people read is the GG does this or has the power to do that, but ultimately, SHE is pulling the strings.
He works for her.
Oh and BTW, to those people who think we are paying for the monarchy, we're not.

Belly,

Can't you find one benefit for ordinary Aussies under a republic?

How will we be not worse off?

We stand before you Belly waiting for guidance and inspiration , huddled masses in the darkness and the mossies. Get it on the road what's the deal?

You won't get answers from Laborites, only opportunistic accusations & desperate grasping at any negative straws. Now they want to throw nearly $10bn at education, AGAIN ?
10 Bn would make a super Non-military National Service scheme that works, unlike education.

I am guilty! please forgive me!I not only vote Labor I work for them, help me please I even pay to work for them.
It may be that they are the only party that can achieve Social equity.
Or that they get more votes than any SINGLE party.
They may have hooked me on the current polling, saying they are by far the two party preferred, preferred government?
How did I find myself in this unfortunate place?
In the company of most of my country men and women.
I KNOW! I should bend a knee to the biggest union in this country, this current government, union for the already wealthy, and march over the backs of those in need
Please forgive me but my gut will not let me change

Dear Sir Belly
You were only elected to this topic on the promise of Real Republic for True Unfakes. We have repeatedly pleaded for justice and your manifesto for Commonwealth of Independence. You keep withholding the info. Spit it out will yuh.

//Google it, what people read is the GG does this or has the power to do that, but ultimately, SHE is pulling the strings.
He works for her.//

No. Name an occasion at any point within, say, the last 66 years - the reign of Her Majesty - when she has ever interfered with our democracy, even indirectly by directing Governors-General to withhold assent for bills or exercise their reserve powers. It's never happened. When the most notable exercise of the reserve powers occurred with the Whitlam dismissal in 1975, Kerr didn't ring up Her Majesty and ask for permission first - and under the Constitution, he didn't have to.

The Constitution may, in theory, allow her to pull strings. But - and it's a big but - she has NEVER exercised those powers. I consider it extremely unlikely that she, or any of her successors, ever will.

She doesn't stick her beak into government either here or in the UK, which is why people like her so much. The British monarchy learnt a great deal from the example of Charles I to what happens to monarchs who take an over-active interest in politics. They probably consider themselves lucky to have been given a second go at it, because that certainly wasn't the case for a number of European monarchies, and are now wary of buggering it up.

It would have been nice if HM had advised Kerr to make sure he wasn't stuffing it up. She is supposed to act on the advice of the PM - Whitlam. Possibly she was well aware she had messed up Philip's life and Margaret's and went on with Diana's. Maybe discretion indicated her strength came from keeping out of the kitchen. She believes she is on a divine mission like Israel's kings or like Trump king of the pops. Thank the lord she doesn't tweet.

Belly,

C'mon, just one material benefit, surely Bill has told you of one advantage for the ordinary bloke/blokess that will flow from us becoming a Democratic Peoples' Republic?

//C'mon, just one material benefit//

Well, there might be more impetus for us to change our flag from it's current terrible design to something that's a bit less hard to confuse with the flag of those sheep-rooters across the ditch.

Although I don't see why we should have to become a republic for that to be the case. Canada have the best flag design in the world, and they're still a constitutional monarchy. I'm sure if we put our minds to it, we can come up with something a bit more striking and original than the Union Jack which adorns the flags of countless Commonwealth nations, and the constellation Crux which adorns the flags of a number of southern-hemisphere nations. Something uniquely Australian.

Unique? That would have to be no flag . Just a kangaroo on a stick.

Belly,

Here's a bit about Prince Charles that you might have missed,
he's a qualified pilot on numerous aircraft.

This link has pros and cons.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/461337-prince-charles-flying-career-3.html

and he's a qualified navigator as well (RN) as well as having been a Ship's Captain.

Hope this helps.

Toni, you got most of your comments right.
The one you got wrong is that as I said, the GG is her guy on the ground.
He does not decide 'anything'.
HRH has on-going intel about all her countries.
She knew well in advance what that turd Twhitlam was about.
She gave the go-ahead to the GG to sack the moron.
Otherwise the GG just sits around performing his normal day-to-day duties as a matter of course.
The Royals do NOT vote, because they do not want to alienate any of the people, and thereby remaining neutral and retaining the public's favour and popularity, as you pointed out.

//She gave the go-ahead to the GG to sack the moron.//

No, she didn't. You're just making stuff up now.

"The monarch chose not to intervene during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, in which Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Labor government of Gough Whitlam, on the basis that such a decision is a matter "clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General". Through her Private Secretary, she wrote that she "has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia#Constitutional_role_and_functions

The old tosspot Curr underlines why we should stand alone.
Alive and active in those days it was clear Labor would be beaten at the next election.
But some thing is very smelly with both the then opposition stopping supply and that drunken old idiots actions.
His drunken rant, he had a few, at the Melbourne cup still reminds me he was the worst GG in a history of bad Englishmen who came here before him, he unfortunately, was Australian

Belly
If His Excellency Sir John Kerr was aussie, how do we stand alone by contrast ? You are yet to score a point, even on this:

"Charlie may have trouble defending his lunch".

"Suggest that you read up about Charles, you might surprise yourself with new found knowledge."

Got your running shoes on, Belly?

What any one of us thinks of Prince Charles is
neither here nor there. The fact remains that
should he become king of Australia he will exert
no political power over our Australian Parliament.

The following link explains:

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/01/whats-to-gain-from-an-australian-republic/

Foxy,

"What any one of us thinks of Prince Charles is
neither here nor there"

True, but posters ought to be up to defending their statements, especially when such statements are derogatory.

Dear Is Mise,

Of course. However not everyone sees things from
that perspective and as we were discussing the
monarch's role in regards to Australia -
How well Charles can fly a helicopter or what other
skills he has - including even his eco-babble, his
personal affairs and scandals - has no
bearing on his role as monarch of Australia.

Toni, if you believe that she does not interfere with the running of the commonwealth countries, I think you may be taking a little too much notice of what is said and not what is done.
If and when Australia becomes a Republic, and I hope it does not, she will not interfere, no.
But I assure you whilst we are as we are now, she is our queen and she has the right to dictate whatever terms and conditions she wishes, upon us.
Proto-col and image are her first priority, but don't let that sway you, she owns Australia, as such she can do whatever she wants.
She chooses to remain at a distance, until she see's the need for her to intervene.
C'mon, as if she would sit back and just watch and do nothing if things started going awry.
Don't forget she is the head of the armed forces.
They are not beholding to some moronic generals or whatever, they belong to HER!
The GG is her buffer, so it is seen that she is not interfering with local politics, so she puts the GG out there to cop all the flack.
If you google all these points you will find I am right.
The queen is also the queen of Australia thereby sealing our position as her servants, and therefore her ability to, through the GG, run any country she 'owns'.
Until the British monarchy and rulers decide to 'let us go', we are not as free and democratic as some would like to think.
I'm OK with that.

As a result of inheriting the joint personally from J Cook, the Queen /King has one last slice of real power. Charles can decide an issue about State rights if a citizen has a problem with Canberra.

"Section 74 did provide that the parliament could make laws to prevent appeals to the Privy Council and it did so in 1968, in matters involving federal legislation. . Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council are now only theoretically possible in Federal : State matters if the High Court grants a certificate of appeal under section 74 of the Constitution.
Section 74 – Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as the the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the Question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be please to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitations shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s pleasure. "

Thank you, Nicknamenick!

Belly,
Even if Shorten were to win the next election he has the task of generating interest in the republic issue.

I have asked my cleaning lady, my butcher, my barber, the barmaid at my pub and other sundries and no one says that people are talking about it. In fact they say it is years since they heard it mentioned.

So, like the bloke with the wheel barrow, you have the job ahead of you. You had better hope your enthusiasm is infectous. Or maybe my contacts were too engaged in the football season.

Foxy,

"Of course. However not everyone sees things from
that perspective and as we were discussing the
monarch's role in regards to Australia - ..."

However, Belly, chose to denigrate Prince Charles in this thread, so as he brought up the subject and as he started the thread, then he ought to back up his statements, or, at the least, give a reference.

As the assertion implied incompetence, then Charles' competence in other matters may have some bearing.

ALTRAV
Charles-in-Council means him with the advice and consent of the privy council 5 Judges usually giving legal effect to cabinet decisions which today is the Pom PM and 21 cabinet ministers or king of 2 cricket teams.

The Governor-General of Papua New Guinea is the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, known in Tok Pisin as 'Missis Kwin'. Charles gets 'Masta King' and must follow PNG decisions. In some extreme case, a citizen could claim that some-one freed from Manus island and entering north Qld had a certain legal problem with Qld : Fed law.
If the buck were passed to Charles he would have his own little British empire for a day.

Ise Mise at first, in long gone threads, I thought you must be a bright young needling person.
Got that wrong.
You keep demanding answers to question that do not deserve one.
Charlie, the Timber Top barron of my youth, what can I say?
Poor beggar must have poor eyessight, picked Camilla Parker whatever over Lady Diana!
You know on a trip to WA he won a piddling competition? seems the rule calls for standing back and seeing who can pee higher up the tree.
YES YES AND YES!I used a well used derogatory term,chinless wounder!
You in your constant following me around verbally tugging my trouser leg,seem to want to point out he has in fact got a chin!
yes! know that!bit of a worm however,please,I know he has legs!

Belly,

I see it now, you feel a bit unworthy as you could never emulate Prince Charles, so you denigrate him, typical republican Labor position, no way to win an argument about him so you invent scurrilous insults.

He's been an Air Force pilot, Navigator, Ship's Captain (RN), good wing shot, pretty good with the rifle, plays a good game of polo and is a very competent horseman as well as a successful farmer.

Over to you.

The question was raised by Belly and free opinions generally said "no".This was the wrong answer and Belly took it as preventing him talking . He's had many requests to put his case which is "be aussie" with insults to any who disobey the order. Probably Belly says "no" to republic , "yes" to one-man rule.

//He's been an Air Force pilot, Navigator, Ship's Captain (RN), good wing shot, pretty good with the rifle, plays a good game of polo and is a very competent horseman as well as a successful farmer.//

He can also open a can of sardines with his teeth, rope steers, toss a caber dead straight, drive a steam locomotive, sing the complete works of Gilbert & Sullivan without becoming confused or breaking down in tears, was taught how to stop his heart by the Dalai Lama (in exchange for teaching him how to play darts properly), is an expert swordsman, brilliant painter, gourmet cook, and by all accounts possibly the finest lover the world has ever known.

Nevertheless, his sole qualification for the position of Prince of Wales is the fact that he's the firstborn son of HRH Elizabeth II. An accident of birth, really, although a fortuitous one that such an Übermensch (well, I say 'Übermensch'... obviously he's part Reptilian like his mother, but I don't know the Deutsch for super Reptilian-human hybrid) should be born into his position.

I think that's what Belly is objecting to... the fact that it's the great genetic lottery of life that grants him his princehood. Imagine if instead of the Most Amazing Man Who Ever Lived having being born into that position, we'd ended up with a Joffrey Baratheon or Charles II of Spain. I mean, you can kind of see the bloke's point.

But only if you pretend, like ALTRAV, that the reigning monarch of the UK has an active hand in the functioning of Australian government, any further than the general scheming of the Reptilians.

Is Mise,

Prince Charles has been viewed with disdain and contempt
by much of the public and the media over the years.

It's all been documented both in
books, and in the press. He has never
exuded the natural warmth and empathy that Princess Diana
did or for that matter his grand mother, the Queen Mother.
His jealousy of Princess Diana's popularity is well known.
He doesn't have the chummy manliness of his father, Prince
Philip, or even the serene calmness of Her Majesty.
And even Princess Diana thought that he'd not make a good
king.

He comes off as distant and strange, talking to plants,
and his ventures into the public sphere have often
resulted with disappointing or disastrous results. The tapes
of his "Camilla conversations" did not help his image - where
he wanted to come back as her tampon, et cetera.

Perception is everything with the Royals. That's why now
with the young royals - new images are being made - and
possibly a fresh start for them and for us to look forward
to. I can't imagine Harry or William having a butler put
their toothpaste on their toothbrushes for them in the
morning - as Charles insisted on his butler doing for him.
(Read it in a book years ago) - or having their newspapers
ironed for them.

'super Reptilian-human hybrid' can be entered in German lexilogos but comes out so horrible it's best put in the bin.

The Queen is just fine in widely separated visits and the G Gen is a rubber stamp copy of her rubber stamp. Bond, Charles Bond , may not fling baddies over the cliff in dinner-jacket with martini but he's not paid to by social security. A passive head of state is effective keeping an eye on the mud-wrestling and showing that civilisation is possible.

//She chooses to remain at a distance, until she see's the need for her to intervene.
C'mon, as if she would sit back and just watch and do nothing if things started going awry.//

Alright buddy, whatever you say: the Queen is waiting there like King Arthur, until Australia is in its moment of direst need - and then - Lo! Drake's Drum shall beat out a merry tattoo, and good old Queen Bess shall sweep in on a pure white stallion to save us all from the wicked lefties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbskIcPZh8A

That about the sum of it, ALTRAV?

Did you know that there is a tribe on Vanuatu who worship Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as some sort of divine being? I reckon you'd fit right in with those guys. There are remarkable similarities between your charmingly naive belief in the Queen as some sort of guardian angel and their cargo-cult beliefs.

Foxy,

"Prince Charles has been viewed with disdain and contempt
by much of the public and the media over the years."

In a well-orchestrated attempt to belittle him, I have worked with sailors who knew him well, as ratings under his command, and they had nothing but praise for him, both as an Officer and as a man.

Never met him myself, but have exchanged salutes with him; I did meet his father once (at a car club meeting in England; he was the Patron), nice friendly chap within the bounds of protocol and he was a great sports car driver, some forty years ago.
Had a 1926 12/50 ALVIS 'Beetle Back' roadster, as I remember.

Toni, you just don't learn.
You bring on these attacks on yourself, well, yourself.
You continually go off topic to contradict and abuse.
After careful reasoning, I found a word best befitting someone of your stature and intellect.
Based merely on your interactions here on OLO.
I went looking for a word that could not be misinterpreted or mistaken as a reasonable description of who you come across as, and Google sees you as an IMBECILE.
Look it up yourself, as you are one of those people on OLO who always wants proof or links.
Well this one is real easy.
The link and proof are on Google.
Knock yourself out.
OH, and BTW, get back on bloody topic.
You've dragged me off topic again for the umpteenth time.
In case you have a short memory, the topic is;
Republic of Australia Yes or No.

//The link and proof are on Google.//

You actually believe that's a useful reference, don't you?

The mind boggles.

IsMise sorry bloke my fault, will try better, see at first I thought I was in conversation with someone who had some understanding.
Nicknamenick
.
Now no! never ever support a dictatorship, and no one here will ever be a bigger critic of my party when needed.
In fact I wait for the next great leader/reformer not yet in sight.
He/She will if not done before, bring about a republic, maybe a new flag, one we will love as much as the ones, there are other ones, that came before.
He/She may oversee a new National anthem, one we know all the words to, if these things take place they will be the wishes of the people, not a few disgruntled for the sake of it posters here

Now for IsMise, if I could read your mind, and posted only things you agree with, in my view you would still haunt me to complain about my posts.
Mate do you understand what that is saying?
How can you think my disdain for Charley is based on not understanding him?
Can you in your love of him have overlooked what his country thinks about him
Did you not hear see feel the pain when Diana died?
Can it be the rumor that his son not him will mount the throne not have reached you? to save the *firm* HRH the Queens term for an over fed overpaid group leaching on its people.
I understand mate, just do not agree

Belly, I just want to make a correction on one of your points.
I realise that the left don't like people who are above them in every way, but I must highlight one very important and irrefutable fact.
And that is; even though the current ruler of the Commonwealth did nothing herself, she inherited the Commonwealth and all the countries within, from her predecessors.
It is no different from your ancestors having led a group of people to fight and overthrow another land owner or invader and by winning the battle won the rights to the other party's lands and all they own.
That was the way it was, back in history, we can't change that.
So here we are today and all the spoils of the past have been handed down to the next in line, as is tradition, and the current 'owner' of all these spoils (countries) is the current Queen of England.
The rulers of the day cede to the wishes of the people of a country, if they wish to became self ruling, they may still choose to remain in the 'Commonwealth' and partake in all that the Commonwealth has to offer.
I felt an explanation was necessary, because I gather from your demeanor that you do not approve of such things as the upper or ruling class as though somehow it demeans the people into subservience.
If you hate monarchy's that much, you will hate a republic even more.
The reason royalty are a better choice is that they don't aspire to be who they are.
People, just ordinary people, who aspire to the position of President or Prime Minister are the ones who deserve your hatred and derision, because they are posers, thieves, cheats, charlatan, con-men and so on.
I much prefer royalty than commoners.
At least with royalty they were born into the role of ruler/leader.
You can see what idiots and morons are like when given too much power, such as govt ministers and they are continually infighting to see who gets the key to the public purse next.

Smarten up! This stupidity was knocked in the head long ago. Given the increased exposure of the young 'royals' the monarchy is becoming more popular than ever. Perhaps some posters here are just testing Belly to see how big a fool he can make of himself. He would have fitted in very well with the crazed mob screaming around the French guillotine as the royal and aristocratic heads dropped into the basket. It's amazing that there are people as backward as Belly still in existence.

Skill with a rubber stamp is needed by the firm , PoW and GG. Charles drove a boat , jumped from a plane and avoided crashing his plane. "Knowing that the remainder of the section was elsewhere on other tasks, Lieutenant Cosgrove ran to the contact area and personally conducted the fight against the enemy. As a result of his actions, two enemy were killed and three weapons and four packs containing rice were captured." However, the pen is mightier than the sword and are made in Fujian China by manufacturers of Paragon pens with almost no karate skill.

Belly,

In the OP you said," British Royal family, its self imported from Germany".

Why emphasize the German bit?

Are you being racist?

Why not mention, just to be fair, that they are also of English, Irish, Welsh and Scots descent?

British people can't be imported to Britain. Admiral of the Fleet Louis Alexander Mountbatten, formerly Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, as a German prince was forced to retire once the war began, when anti-German sentiment was running high. He changed his name and relinquished his German titles, at the behest of King George V, in 1917. He is the maternal grandfather of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II. The name of the British Royal Family Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became the English Windsor as in Edward VIII of Herr Hitler Industries , EU.

Quite a bit to cover left? bloke ace it up! my proud union fought the communist left from day one I am not left.
I as is the case for many men in this country dislike the Royals
IsMISE another blindly stupid complaint? are you aware HISTORY reports this current Royal Family was imported? is saying that racist? you poor bugger.
ttbn sorry but you are an ugly person, not bright not even average, but tops in bitterness
is it because in real life people walk away from you, are you in decline? or have you always been a bit behind everyone else?
Noticed you insulting others a lot lately have you not got a mirror?
This much is clear, we dislike each other, one of us is quite right to do so, I avoid your threads, why must you hunt out mine? you will never convince me you do not have issues, so? be a man stay away from me, just maybe you should ask your therapist for advice

Belly,

"IsMISE another blindly stupid complaint? are you aware HISTORY reports this current Royal Family was imported? is saying that racist? you poor bugger."

As I and the Royal Family share some British ancestors I'm absolutely certain that their heritage and descent is not entirely German.

Read some history, lad.

This is what is called a reference, please take note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_English_and_British_monarchs

Is Mise,

Yes, the Royals like the UK itself - are a mixture. However there
is an awful lot of German in that mix. But then Her Majesty,
the Queen prefers dogs to people - and you can't get more
British than that. :-)

When he's finished the US in 2 years , Trump could jet in and be asked to do the same as Gov Gen. He won't need to get citizenship just swear a few words. Yanks are assumed to be royal loyals anyway. So anyone can be imported like the Irishman in Qantas with the flying kangaroo.

Foxy,

The Queen, on her mother's side, has nary a German ancestor that I can find, most are English and Scots; the furthest that I've looked at is Richard de Lyons, born about 1192.

The Germans come in on her father's tree.

Siegfried und teufel , das Britische Weltreich . The first 3 Georges were " Our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord George , by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, .", und Deutschland.

George I married Sophia Dorothea of Celle of Duke of Braunschweig -Lüneburg.
George II married Caroline of Ansbach of Herrenhausen, Hanover, Germany
daughter of Margrave John Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach, House of Hohenzollern .
George III married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz the Electress of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire until George became King of Hanover 1814, when she was also queen consort of Hanover.
Geo IV married Caroline of Brunswick of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel , Braunschweig .

William IV married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen of Duke of Saxe-Meiningen and of Luise Eleonore of Hohenlohe-Langenburg.

Adelaide, the British city in South Australia, is named after her.

Curious Adelaide: Why do South Australians have a different accent to ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-03/curious-adelaide-do-south...speak.../9093738Nov 2, 2017 - South Australians are sometimes told they sound a bit posh, or a little more British than other Aussies.
Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha married Queen Victoria, from the Saxon duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld,

Edward VII married Alexandra of Denmark of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg,

George V married Mary of Teck , princess of Teck, in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

Ismise you can not re-write history to suit your self
After the british royal family line died out it bought a King and Queen in to replace them, like the new monarch after the invasion of 1066, that King spoke another language
As your well informed self will know QUEEN Victoria and her German consort saw their children wed in to if not all most of europe's Royal families, ww1 saw and end to many of those privileged chinless wonders.
It is true that those Royals still in power today are not just interrelated but often inbred
Young Harry it is said may not even be charlies son shame as he without doubt seems the best of them

Greeks had a German-born King Otto of Greece in 1862, but rejected Otto's brother as successor. Many Greeks, rallied around Prince Alfred of Queen Victoria . The Greeks voted and Prince Alfred received over 95% of the 240,000 votes. There were 93 votes for a Republic and 6 for a Greek. King Otto received one vote.

With Prince Alfred's exclusion by Britain, the search began for an alternative candidate. . Eventually, the Greeks and Great Powers chose Prince William of Denmark, who had received 6 votes in the plebiscite and became Prince Philip's grandfather. The 93 republican votes went to a German , Trump , who imported Chinese fake telephones.

Belly,

"Ismise you can not re-write history to suit your self
After the british royal family line died out it bought a King and Queen in to replace them,""

Reference, please.

Foxy,

I meant to mention the Lithuanian ancestry on the Queen's paternal side.

The Queen is 1/4 German ethnic descent , genetically 1/2. Philip is 5/8 descent, genes 4/4 .
Charles is 7/16 descent. genes 3/4. Due to lack of royal breeders there is substitution of public chromosomes indicating republican outcomes.

Belly,

In your opinion how many generations must one have to be considered an Australian?

Ise Mise, try William of Orange, look you ask yet another silly question in another post.
It is not my problem that you wasted your education.
On leaving school I had very little, try reading,
say another,s post here for starters

We can't even unite Australia yet some people seem to think we can be a Republic ?
To be a functioning Republic you need a population of doers not a whingeing mob of bludgers.
A Republic needs discipline & responsibility, now where would that come from here ?
Stay as we are & at least try to better humans before wasting any more time on becoming a Republic. The money saved could go a long way towards making things better all round.
Want a Republic then go to one !
We have a new seemingly decent leader so support him, not sabotage his every move.

Belly,

In your opinion how many generations must one have to be considered an Australian?

Cat got your tongue?

Question too hard?

When they had a German CEO their footprint covered 1/4 of the world. Then a foreign prince of Australia could pull off a major expansion into east Asia.

Belly,

"Ise Mise, try William of Orange,..."

OK, I did and his mother was Mary, Princess Royal of England, she was the du. of King Charles I, son of King James etc.

So what's your point, William III's mother was English and the line goes back through her, and others?

Do read a little history before hitting the keys.

Belly,

You said, "Well not even slightly surprised we will not talk about the issue."

So why won't you talk about it?

You've been asked often enough what the advantages are, actual material ones, that a republic will bring to the ordinary Australian, yet you refuse to answer.

Ise Mise in a thread, was it this one? a mention of greyhound racing popped up.
Bought me back to my punting days.
Boy did I punt/bet!
Student of the form read for hours before getting my money out.
On form, you would not beat the Ambulance home in a fifth grade maiden.
YOU gave me, evidence of the inbreeding of the Royal Family
then chid me for not answering silly questions?

eh? not answering silly questions.
"Republic of Australia Yes or No" _ Belly , October 2018.
For the Yes case : dibble dibble squat zero

Is Mise,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-11/11693813/How-German-is-the-Queen.html

Is Mise,

My apologies for the typo - here's the link again:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11693813/How-German-is-the-Queen.html

The benefits for changing to a Republic are questionable -
however the reasons for doing so are a different matter.
We've heard all the arguments before they vary from -

1) Australia should have an Australian Head of State not
a foreign unelected monarch who we can't remove from office and
who gained the job on who her mother claims her father was. Also
our head of state acts in the best interests of several other
nations - not just ours. We deserve better. We need an
Australian head of state answerable to the Australian people

2) Australia today is a multicultural society and we should
have our own flag not theirs over ours. We don't need a
"Mother Country," or a mummy anymore. We need to stand on our
own as a nation.

3) The idea of a monarch as an Australian head of state does
not sit well with the Australian idea of egalitarianism. We
need a constitution that serves our people, not the monarch.

4) As for maintaining "tradition?"
Denying women the vote was a tradition, imprisoning homosexuals
was a tradition, executing people was a tradition, not
recognising the Indigenous community as citizens was
traditional. Tradition has never prevented us from making
positive changes before. It shouldn't now.

However, it's up to the Australian people to decide.
As is often said - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The benefits of changing are - none as far as I can see,
and many agree. However the reasons for changing are many.
The choice is ours to make. - Reasons versus benefits?
Our choice.

Edward VII was an active diplomat up to 1910. The Kaiser was Victoria's grandson and Tsar Nicholas' wife was her granddaughter.
The British good-sense and compromise didn't seem to get through to those 2 but then mad George was a bit short in that department. A box of chocolates, said Forrest Gump who couldn't spell real good.

We, yes us, do it in every thread, we at first take an honest look at whatever the subject is.
Then some of us,insult the author or each other, because we do not like his/her/her his/ opinion.
We get rude with one another, see my posts here and yes elsewhere.
FRUSTRATED, even annoyed that others can not see our point of view.
The debate suffers, how am I to explain my belief the British Royal family is while quite possibly nice, some of them, inbred and overpaid, that just maybe they are a thing we should, like most of Europe, have left in the past?
Ise Mise, ever willing to nit pick, demands I if not fade away explain my self.
And too calls for better reasons to explain my view we are better without them.
Better than being proud of my country, better than pointing out that not everyone likes the Royals, and in saying enough of my fellow Australians think as I do too, pleased a referendum has been promised by Labor
This is an open forum, we should if we wish, be able to talk about anything, holding a different opinion is not a crime

Foxy,

As we live in a far from perfect country, a country with multiple problems, health care (hospitals, doctors in remote places etc.)
education, road and rail infrastructure, water supplies and on and on.
Let's fix these before wasting money on voting on a republic.

There are many reasons not to bother with the republic debate but if we must have a vote then one thing that ought to be done is the barring of any person who has stood for or been elected to either a State or the Federal Parliament from ever becoming President.

Belly
Agree that you having your opinion is not a crime . Nothingburger is.
"we should, like most of Europe, have left in the past?"
good.
why?
Norway , Sweden , Denmark, Holland , Belgium, Monaco , Spain, UK. US has Elvis forever amen.

Belly,

"Ise Mise, ever willing to nit pick, demands I if not fade away explain my self."

It's not nit picking to ask you to explain what you mean, and no one wants you to fade away.

You have imputed that Charles is a useless coward and that migrants to Australia can never be true Australians nor can their children.

Ise Mise you have put YOUR spin on my words, I inferred nothing.
I am well aware of the service Charlie has given, too that his sons, even the one said not to be his have given.
It has always been a *thing* for the Royals to serve
Even Liz, our current Queen and her sister served during ww2.
We know of Lord Louis Mountbatten's service, even that he over looked India becoming a free country after ww2.
Take all that in to consideration.
But let me,,based on what I see and think,holding the view the man was badly damaged by his and his family's reaction after Lady Diana,s death, and his insistence in conversation with others that his mum is not to be called that, but at all times her Royal highness.
Like his rude dad the man is not lovable

Belly,

"Ise Mise you have put YOUR spin on my words, I inferred nothing"

You inferred that the Queen is German, despite the fact that the last High King of Ireland, Brian Boruma, was her 35th great grandfather, therefore, in all fairness, one must assume that you apply the same reasoning to Australians who have recent ancestors from another country.
http://www.battleofclontarf.net/brian-boru/famous-descendants-of-brian-boru/3460

For 2 centuries the German imports had only ethnic German spouses .
Philip's father was and his mother was genetic German. In US they have Afro-Americans after many generations and Chinese-Australians who came in the gold-rush. Angela Merkel and Trump have a good chance of splitting Britain 50:50.

Wasn't Trump's old man german ? Wilhelm Boeing was another one. I don't think there was however an Airbus. ;-)

Yes Arbaz Boeing Trump.
What does Arbaz mean?
Meaning:
Eagle
Gender:
Boy
Origin:
Arabic
Religion:
Muslim

The Boeing F15 eagle Arbaz is Islamic German and its son F35 is on Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier.

Ise Mise you are entering the twilight zone!
I NEVER said LIZ is German, I DID highlight the true history, after a Royal line ended a German was imported.
Util the outbreak of ww1 the Royal house had a Germanic name, changed to Windsor because of anti German feelings.

She's 1/2 German and her Dad was absolutely. Lucky he wasn't alien immigrant when the situation began to change in the spring of 1940. More and more Germans and Australians were rounded up. Thousands of Germans, Austrians and Italians were sent to camps set up at racecourses and incomplete housing estates, such as Huyton outside Liverpool and Manus island.

Belly,

"I NEVER said LIZ is German, I DID highlight the true history, after a Royal line ended a German was imported."

You implied that she is German, and as for highlighting true history the Royal line did not die out, Elizabeth II can trace her ancestry back through the rulers of England into the mists of legend.
http://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-most-senior-known-living-member-of-the-House-of-Wessex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_English_and_British_monarchs

and as I said earlier Brian Boruma, of Ireland was her 35th great grandfather, incidently he's 33rd ggf to me.

If Brian had 4 kids and each also did , then 35 generations gives you
295147905179352825855 Brians and 1 Is Mise.

3ns,

Makes one realize one's true significance!!

Yes Majesty.

Some weird stuff goes on in your head Ise Miserable.
OK guilty, I am a Colonial upstart!
One who thinks bending the knee to *anyone* is not on.
In my defense it was my convict blood, it always comes out.
Not sure if that long ago ancestor was German, chance he was Irish.
Ise Miserable will know by now I am a worthless convict sod.
Is old Liz German? as the thought was born in your head not mine tell me, promise I will tell no one if you say she is a Kraut

Brian Boruma was seriously challenged by the Dubliners under their king Sihtric Silkbeard the German, and the Leinstermen led by Máel Mórda mac Murchada (Republican, Iowa 35,632 votes). In 1014, Brian's armies confronted the armies of Leinster and Dublin, with Norsemen fighting on both sides. The list of the noble dead in the Annals of Ulster includes Irish kings, Norse Gaels, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) 153 and Scandinavians with standing orders suspended during Question Time .

Belly,

You said

"Charlie may have trouble defending his lunch"

That implies cowardice and incompetence.

You also said,

"Is old Liz German? as the thought was born in your head not mine tell me, promise I will tell no one if you say she is a Kraut"

The thought was yours when you posted,

"... British Royal family, its self imported from Germany..."

You really need some good memory training and some training in good manners.

//and as I said earlier Brian Boruma, of Ireland was her 35th great grandfather, incidently he's 33rd ggf to me.//

And probably to me, Belly, and just about everybody else on this forum. We're also descended from Charlemagne:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

The Queen can trace her ancestry back to Alfred the Great and from Cerdic first King of Wessex (519-534) . In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cerdic was a descendent of Woden god of royals and the gallows , Wednesday. Holidays can be any day of the gods' holy week.
Woden was elected for 3000 years , all day.

Belly, you may think you are not 'bending the knee'.
Because you are not physically doing it.
Let me assure you, you ARE bending the knee every day, and will do so even more if we become a republic.
As we are today, you should be so grateful as to get the opportunity to 'bend the knee' because it means you have been summoned to an audience with HRH, and in doing so it will be to receive something of a acknowledgement for possibly some service rendered and been reckognised for it.
These are truly proud moments for not only yourself but your extended family and friends.
Under a republic you will be more beholding to the system and the unworthy leaches who would con their way into the position of President and Canberra, or whatever.
You, as well as the rest of us would eventually have to have a day of reckoning to get rid of these scumbags in Canberra who will treat Australia as their own and the public as their servants.
Then you will be forced to 'bend the knee', or else!
The problem with your position, like those of a lower social standing, (coming from convict beginnings) is that you are unable to better yourselves through effort and commitment and instead take the 'easy way out', and that is to bring those above you down to your level or lower, so you can then feel some self worth.
Belly we are all different.
Just accept who/what you are and work with what you have.
Whilst you spend all this time and energy bringing others down you are missing out on living YOUR life.
It takes a lot more than you or whatever OLO has to offer, to change people's make-up.
So mate, don't waste your time with time wasters and say what you want to say.
The adjudicators on OLO seem reasonably mature and let us get away with a lot, and I'm very grateful that they do and don't get all PC on us.
Don't get sucked into time wasting explanations and childish challenges.

Toni,

"//and as I said earlier Brian Boruma, of Ireland was her 35th great grandfather, incidently he's 33rd ggf to me.//

And probably to me, Belly, and just about everybody else on this forum. We're also descended from Charlemagne"

Very true, and as I also said,

"Makes one realize one's true significance!!".

Family trees are like peanut bushes.

Here's a photo of an Australian bowing his head to Chinese leaders.
https://thewest.com.au/business/mining/chinese-company-lined-up-to-build-6m-balla-balla-project-ng-b88425297z
We all bow our head when getting an Olympic medal or football ribbon around the neck. As being a knight is not on , Belly won't have to bow on bended knee not even to a worker and peasant of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Maybe he won't bow to His Honour when being convicted except to weep when sent to Tasmania.

Is Miserable, well I know better, but insist on trying in any case, see talking to you is like riding a bicycle, one that has no wheels yet I am trying to ride to Melbourne.
Not going to work, horror of horrors! I like many of my country men and women am a REPUBLICAN.
Generations of Anglophiles chewing the cucumber sangers while down on one knee, fondly talking of *home* in my childhood, a home they had never seen in the last three generations, irks me still.
Are you English? or just prone to being unhappy

I like many of my country men and women am a REPUBLICAN.
Belly,
Do you actually know why ?

Belly,

"Is Miserable, well I know better, but insist on trying in any case, see talking to you is like riding a bicycle, one that has no wheels yet I am trying to ride to Melbourne"

Well, whilst yer on yer bike, think about telling us the advantages to us ordinary folk of Australia becoming a republic.
You are championing a republic so you should know what its advantages are and be willing to convince others; otherwise, you are just pushing an ideology for the sake of that ideology, a rather mindless pursuit.

My parents were more british than the British and told me the empire will rule the world. Now it controls Gibraltar when the excitable Spanish aren't slinging off about EU gunboats invading. Soon the Windsors will be cut back to Yarralumla on casual work visas with selfies by Belly and no head butts.

nicknamenick you sure baffle me, unlike another I can see a bright mind in there but it sure has difficulties getting past your sense of humor.
As for me? colonialist moron of convict stock I just refuse to stay in the box Ise Mise made for me
Roll on the REPUBLIC

Belly,

"As for me? colonialist moron of convict stock I just refuse to stay in the box Ise Mise made for me
Roll on the REPUBLIC"

Just tell us the advantages of a republic; or can't you think of any?

Mr B Convict

I've done my best to imagine your republic and its Commonwealth Commanding Co-Ordinator I really have . And I've given you some of the best days of my life , washed up done your nappy and if that's not good enough I'm sorry, my mother warned me about you you just don't care do you and furthermore I can't take it an

Ise Mise you ask me? a refugee from formal schooling to teach you?
Lord bloke you throw me in to the deep end.
Try to remain calm, and I will write slowly
No need to refer to old girl Liz or the other chinless wonders
2 Standing proudly with other nations and saying we reject colonisation.
3 being a good kid and leaving home to wander in the big world.
4 not having English migrants ask silly questions
5 being a true part of the part of the world we live in.
OK ring the bell it is morning break, try not to get dirty .
After lunch we will learn about the British cruelty in India when it was a colony/slave state

6. Declaration of Loyalty.
Where a law requires a Declaration of Loyalty to be made, it shall be made in the following form:—
"I,…, declare my loyalty to the Independent State of Papua New Guinea .

7. Oath of Allegiance.
I,…, do swear that I will well and truly serve and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her heirs and successors according to law.

India, however, desired to become a republic, but not depart the Commonwealth by doing so. This was accommodated by the creation of the title 'Head of the Commonwealth' for the King, and India became a republic in 1950. Subsequently, many other nations including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore ceased to recognise the monarch of the United Kingdom as their respective head of state, but as members of the Commonwealth of Nations recognised the British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth

Belly,

How does that load of codswallop help the ordinary Australian; does it reduce the cost of living?

Just be a good lad and tell us the real, everyday benefits of your republic.

Or can't you think of any?

Is Mise,

I stated on page 20 of this discussion that the
BENEFITS for changing to a Republic are questionable,
however the REASONS for doing so are many - and I list
some of them on that page.

I also stated that it's up to the Australian people to
decide BENEFITS or REASONS. It is their choice.

What's your problem?

Foxy,

I don't have a problem but some seem to have one in not being able to tell us all what becoming a republic will do for the benefit of ordinary Australians.

Now there is no doubt that there are those who will feel good if we become a republic but that's not a reason to spend money changing things that don't need to be changed.

I note that Belly, being the good Australian that he thinks himself, has no hesitation in denigrating our Head of State, to do so is to denigrate Australia; still, what can one expect from a self-confessed moron?

Belly,

"...No need to refer to old girl Liz or the other chinless wonders..."

Last time I looked ERII seemed to have a normal chin.
Who are the chinless wonders to whom you refer?

M. le Ventre,
Nous parlons en anglais , non?

1.No need to refer to old girl Liz or the other chinless wonders.
James Cook was a typo , it was Les in his tinny at Botany Bay who drank from the creek . But you're right , Prince Philip didn't land here at Sydney Cove.
2 Standing proudly with other nations and saying we reject colonisation.
Poms rejected their MPs ruling here about 30 years ago.
3 being a good kid and leaving home to wander in the big world.
No Aussie kids in London then.
4 not having English migrants ask silly questions
"Republic Yes or No".
5 being a true part of the part of the world we live in.
You don't mean part of NZ or Indonesia. So we become Aboriginal . Not so easy , boomerang takes years let alone woomera and spear.

Is Mise,

I think that Belly is looking at the REASONS why
Australia should become a Republic. Many
Australians would agree with him. And as I've
stated earlier - it will be the people's choice
in the end.

Foxy
Why do you say most agree with those reasons?
When do they refer to old girl , When aren't they standing proudly with other nations , Can they
be a good kid and leave home to wander in the big world?
What English migrants ask silly questions , What is not being a true part of the part of the world we live in?
The real issue is :
"chewing the cucumber sangers while down on one knee, fondly talking of *home* in my childhood, ".
The US revolutionary soldiers for independence were serious. This dude ain't but reckons he is.

Foxy,

But I want to know the benefits, how are we ordinary folk to be better off?
The reasons are many and many of them are spurious, the benefits are what matter in the long term and I don't see any, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who can enlighten me.

Ise Mise well done! having marched on to the verbal tennis court with a raquet that has no strings you get around it.
By changing the question
Phil the Greek would be proud of you, Liz too.
Sorry but the Corgis may piddle on your leg.
Are you English?
Or have you gathered the ability to complain about nothing from a life time of practice?
Stone the flaming crows bloke! give me warning if you intend to ask new questions, but!* are you English?*

Belly,

How did I change the question; now as you say that I have you may, in your moronic way, be able to give an answer.

Found any benefits yet?

No republic for me.

CM, Hear, hear! Amongst other reasons, it has been said that the 'people', will decide our fate.
Unfortunately, if we have learned anything from the past, and present, the people are utter morons. They are swayed by the most erroneous of reasons.
Too many decisions of past have been absolutely egregious and caused great social discontent and disconnect.
The further back we go, in time, the more the population was in agreement, as we all had similar social values.
Since the 'white Australia' policy was removed, we have seen a large and varied array of different races and creeds migrate to Australia.
Because of this we are now facing a more splintered and partisan population, each group vying for the parties that will best cater to their needs and demands.
This has seriously affected a large proportion of the population badly, and weakened the majors.
With all this torture and turmoil, it is obvious to any thinking person that a Republic will NOT be of any benefit over what we have now.
The only people who will benefit will be the ministers and the elite.
And as the saying goes, 'If it's good for them, it must be bad for us'.
Let me put this as succinctly as possible.
We, the people, will be 'WORSE OFF' as a republic!
End of!

One benefit from John Kerr 1975 was that he was being an aussie. He was criticised for being a tool of the Australian Libs (rather than tool of British monarchy) . To make that point , Whitlam said " well may we say God save the Queen" and his budget bills were nothing to do with the monarchy thing. And if the GGen suddenly became the head by himself no-one would see any change in the situation of political issues.
...
except Belly on his knees choking on cucumber with his big chin.

Altrav,

"Since the 'white Australia' policy was removed, we have seen a large and varied array of different races and creeds migrate to Australia"

We already had Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists pre 1900, so who else arrived?

Is Mise, EVERYONE ELSE!
The point I am making is that because we had fewer people back then, including the migrants, so it was not possible to garner enough support from any one group or nationality.
Unlike today.
A very important and relevant fact also is, that the early migrants assimilated well.
My parents as wogs were post war migrants.
Since the white Australia policy was removed we have seen a large increase in migration of many more races and creeds.
Approx 200,000 per year apparently.
A republic is going to facilitate these other races and creeds, because they will be a higher proportion of the population, and therefore be in a position to effect change that will suite them.
That includes cultural change.
Now I know from history and my life growing up in Australia, that we have many different schools of many different faiths.
I do not recall any one of them going around and actually 'forcing' organizations and businesses to pay a fee for, I'm not sure what but it had something to do with HALAL food.
The only time I have seen anything close to this, it was called 'protection'.
The process was in fact extortion.
So there are several points to be made here.
One is that had we kept a European migration, we would not be in danger now.
Two, tor the same reason we would not see a slow overthrow of our western/christian culture to another of many.
If you want a glimpse into the future, just look up the Mayor of Sydney.
Every year we are seeing more and more infiltration.
Who is the moron who decided that just because some Muslim muckwits want to 'shirt front' the Aussie culture and demanded they take down any signs of Christianity in schools.
I find it an affront and the height of arrogance to migrate to a country that you are well aware of it's practices, and demand they change their ways to accommodate some cretins.
The blame sits squarely at the feet of who agreed to this crap in the first place.

//We already had Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists pre 1900, so who else arrived?//

Scientologists.

If we ever do become a republic, and I become president, I'm going to build a wall and make the Scientologists pay for it.

Oliver Cromwell heard a voice from above and made everyone pay for it. Royal styles of
Oliver Cromwell, the republican.
Lord Protector of the Commonwealth
Arms of the Protectorate (1653–1659).
Reference style His Highness
Spoken style Your Highness.

Is Mise said "We already had Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists pre 1900, so who else arrived?"

Answer- As I understand Is Mise tends to have a bias in favour of Indian peoples. I'd be surprised if the proportion of Indian diaspora pre 1900's was anywhere near as great as that in 2018. Pre 1900 transport and communication was very different- that forced immigrants to fit in- not anymore- now they are boldly declaring Australia as their country- and Australian's as the foreign. They have declared war on the Australian people.

Australia is a British country. The government has acted against the Australian people without a mandate of the Australian people by their immigration policy. These immigrants have often come to Australia to exploit our home our heritage because they haven't managed their own home. Immigrants need to fix their own countries. It is not an ideal situation but we still have to act in the best interest of Australia's future. We need to put immigrants in camps and give them incentives to leave Australia for the best interest of Australia. We need to disempower and incarcerate socially progressive globalist agitators as traitors against Australia. The balance needs to be restored. We need to reverse the irresponsible acts of our government. We need to ensure that the government can never allow this to happen again. The contract is invalid.

Immigrants have declared war on the Australian people- even if they want to kill us off we don't want to kill them- we just want them to leave us to our birthright.

Paraphrasing the Dalai Lama- Australia is for the Australians.

It will be difficult- but it must be done.

In some wars brothers must fight brothers.

Actually I suspected that Is Mise is an Indian subversive sympathiser
and socially progressive globalist agitator declaring war on Australia , republicans and Saxons. Jail is too good for the likes of him the bad dog.

Canem Malum,

"Answer- As I understand Is Mise tends to have a bias in favour of Indian peoples. I'd be surprised if the proportion of Indian diaspora pre 1900's was anywhere near as great as that in 2018. Pre 1900 transport and communication was very different- that forced immigrants to fit in- not anymore- now they are boldly declaring Australia as their country- and Australian's as the foreign. They have declared war on the Australian people."

I've been married to an Indian national for 26 years, I have lived in India and am a fairly frequent visitor (next trip Feb. next year for a friend's daughter's wedding), I have served with and commanded Indian troops and our main field hospital in Korea was Indian and staffed by people who were both excellent professionally and as people, so I do tend to have a bias towards them.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that the religions that I mentioned were in Australia before the WAP.

There has been an upsurge in Indian migration of late years but Indians integrate well and whilst they may speak one of the myriad Indian languages at home, 99.9% of them speak English as a second language as a knowledge and proficiency in its use is encouraged in India, especially by business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_Indi

CM, once again you come through with clarity and direction.
Once again I applaud your narrative.
I find your postings very clear and straight to the point, unlike myself.
Most of all I find I am in sync with your comments almost all the time.
I suspect you are a well educated and travelled man with more than the usual amount of reason and common sense.
I am not suggesting I will always agree with you, but, thus far I am pleased to say that your words and thoughts are in the same vein as mine.
Please continue, as this forum needs more people and ideologies like yourself and your ability to see things clearer than most.
My comments are of course in keeping with the topic of Republic of Australia, Yes or No.

Ise Mise come in to my den said the spider to the fly.
Have you not noticed? Three times I asked you a question.
No answer?
Are you English?
Four if you answer it I like you, will ask another silly question and insult you for not answering it before I asked it.

The 468,000 Indians are 1.9% of the Australian population . Indian army has 1,200,000 with 960,000 reserves and the Brahmos missile which does mach3 or 2700kph and will do mach5. In Mahabharata 11, The royal sage Dhritarashtra, enquired of Yudhishthira , "If, O son of Pandu, thou knowest it, tell me the number of those that have fallen in this battle". Yudhishtira : “1 billion, 660 million, and 20 thousand men perished in the war. Only 240,165 heroes survived” .
Australia now has 10 Asian elephants available and 700,000 unemployed but the odds are 3:1 for India. Afghan Camel Corps of Alice Springs dominates the centre flanked by Chinese students.

Belly,

My recent ancestry is Irish/Scot and English/Irish for the grandparents and Irish/Irish and Scot/Scot; English/English and Irish/Irish for the Greats, so that makes me predominantly Irish.
However, as we go back further lots of others get a mention Welsh, Vikings, Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Russians and various other Eastern Europeans and it gets a bit complicated as the lines cross over.
I am, however, fifth generation Australian.

Hope this helps.

Altrav- Thanks for your feedback.

The Opera House is a secure internment camp and handy to shipping.

Here's a couple of tests to see how Australian are
you - actually:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/how-australian-are-you-actually

And -

http://www.arealme.com/australian-english-test/en/

ACED it Foxy,afraid to say in my defense I can not claim insanity for being a Republican.
Vote against it! if my party or any other tries to pick pollys for the figure head.
tried to be funny in picking Emma Alberici, but my other picks would do.
Ise Mise every country making up the British Isle in my blood Scott and Irish seem prominent
As it is likely Labor will form the next government [ not however win Wentworth just reduce the margin] we will be voting on this issue

If it's in 2022 that will be the centenary of Irish Republic , a victory over the British Scots from royal Ireland. Scots of course are proud Englishmen.

nnn,

Scots are Irish!!

Foxy,

Did the first one, 75 out of 117.

Modern music and the various forms of football were my main downfalls!!

Scots are Irish!!
I knew that but the English don't.

nick,

"If it's in 2022 that will be the centenary of Irish Republic , a victory over the British Scots from royal Ireland. Scots of course are proud Englishmen."

Actually, the Centenary of the Republic of Ireland won't be till 2049.

George III was king of France and the title has not been surrendered.
Ireland is a royal republic.
This first Dáil in January 1919 issued a Declaration of Independence and proclaimed an Irish Republic. The Declaration was mainly a restatement of the 1916 Proclamation with the additional provision that Ireland was no longer a part of the United Kingdom. The new Irish Republic was recognised internationally by the Russian Soviet Republic.

However, by 1936, systematic attempts to remove references to the monarch from Irish constitutional law meant that the only functions remaining to the Crown were:

signing Letters of Credence accrediting Irish ambassadors to other states; and
signing international treaties on Ireland's behalf.
This status quo remained, with Ireland participating little in the British Commonwealth and Éamon de Valera remarking in 1945 that "we are a republic".

UK 1949
s. 2(1) – Declared that, even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes of British law.
s. 2(2) – Established that the Irish ambassador to the United Kingdom would enjoy the same legal privileges with regard to taxation as the High Commissioners representing Commonwealth countries.

s. 3(2) – Made blanket provision for how certain wording in existing British legislation should be construed; for example, references to "His Majesty's dominions" were to be construed as including a reference to the Republic of Ireland despite its actual change of status.

//Did the first one, 75 out of 117.//

I got 70. But I knew the answers to both the TISM questions, and as far as I'm concerned they're the only ones that really count.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNqDFZm6qjM

I got 89 out of 117.

How about that?

France rid themselves of Royalty, not calling for heads, just wait many will come to an end soon.
Wondering when the bottom will fall out of France because it became a republic?

Never mind France, Belly, just tell us how an Australian republic is going to help the average Australian.

Belly,

"Wondering when the bottom will fall out of France because it became a republic?"

Which of the Five Republics do you mean?

What's the bottom of France?

//France rid themselves of Royalty//

Yes, so did America....

On the other hand, Sweden are still a constitutional monarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8SGRm3JaW8

I rest my case.

Ise Mise you ask what the impacts on normal Australians would be?
Why old mate? it should not concern you based on your posted views you are far from a normal Australian.
A fact is here in the open many average Australians came from other than once great Britain.
reasons do not need to be benefits.
My reason, our country's reason when in time we stand up for our country will be love of country

"Lalor's password for Eureka stockade – "Vinegar Hill" – caused support for the rebellion to fall away, as Irish home rule had become involved. Irish Rebellion 1798 was at Vinegar Hill Enniscorthy, County Wexford. Eureka was overwhelmingly populated by the Irish to begin with. Professor Geoffrey Blainey says the white cross behind the stars on the Eureka flag "really [is] an Irish cross rather than being [a] configuration of the Southern Cross".

There can be benefit without reason and reason without benefit. It's an Irish thing.

I would really like to know if there are any benefits for the ordinary Australian if the country becoming a republic, so far no one can tell me of any.
Is that because there aren't any?

Belly,

Which French Republic did you mean?

The first three didn't do so well, the Fourth was ended by war and the Fifth is still going.

Gold mining rights are held by the Crown despite Lalor's efforts, as Independent : Ballarat.
Peter Lalor. Legislative Assembly: 1856-1887 . Speaker: 1880-1887
The Commonwealth is entitled under international law to exercise sovereignty over minerals under the territorial sea, within the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf including the South China sea and Sea of Pyongyang. A republic will shirt-front the realm of the Celestial Emperor and his family in The Forbidden City of the terrestrial emperor, its earthly counterpart enriched by Australian gold.

I guess all you monarchists will be watching
the Royal wedding tonight of Princess Eugenie-
on channel 7, at 7PM? Fascinating stuff - all
that pomp and ceremony. I wonder if the Princess
would have outdone Prince Harry's and Meghan's
wedding - as she wanted to do?

Watch and see. The Royals do it with such style.
And will Princess Eugenie's mum - the Duchess of
York be finally allowed to sit with the Royals at her
own daughter's wedding - or will they place her
with the groom's side of the family - as stated in the
women's mags?

The Royals don't forgive or forget. They have such class -
don't they?

cont'd ...

My apologies - the Royal Wedding is on
tomorrow night - Friday 12th October 2018
at 7.00PM on Channel 7.

Worth watching.

NOOOOO Foxy! more bleeding women,s magazines in the doctors waiting room!
Enough to make you sick, is that why they are there?
Mens stuff on the bottom 25 years old, but heaps of Royal wedding type stuff.

//more bleeding women,s magazines in the doctors waiting room!
Enough to make you sick, is that why they are there?//

No, I have it on good authority that the reason doctors favour the gossip mags is because they're so terrible that nobody bothers to nick them. If they put out anything decent, people pinch it.

What will Fergie wear ? Will it be 1980s do you think? What colour suits her hair ? What will Foxy wear and why?

SMH this morning, as we know one of the extended Royal lay about family is to be wed,on the tax payers cost.
The awful young snob wants a horse drawn open top carriage
Grab a cab girl you are not all that important, if you get your wish?
Hope the hose lifts it tail.

Chinese trade in fake royal carriages includes copies of the luxurious diamond jubilee state coach that delivered Xi and the Queen to Buckingham Palace on Tuesday. The original diamond jubilee state coach – estimated to be worth £900,000 – was designed for the Queen by Australian carriage maker Jim Frecklington and took a decade to build. Gao said his factory, in the city of Xuchang, could do it in a fraction of the time and will give a fake Australian coach to the ABC and Opera house directors for Randwick royal coach races .

China denies that its new portable laser weapon that can zap a target from nearly a kilometre away will give unfair advantage to Chinese coach drivers. The ZKZM-500 laser assault rifle is classified as being “non-lethal” but produces an energy beam that cannot be seen by the naked eye but can pass through windows and cause the “instant carbonisation” of human skin and tissues. Only low-power applications will be used by Peoples' Heroic Struggle Winners.

What are the advantages of a republic?

Belly doesn't know; does anyone else?

Is Mise,

http://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/the-case-for-an-australian-republic,3989

Russian Kremlin Guards goose-step at slow march near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Moscow. The goose step is a special marching step performed on formal military parades , often seen in Australian Rules and fast bowlers attacking Poms

Ise Mise pride in our country, and end topaying the Royal family to come here and annoy us
No need to bend our knee to any one,,ending LIZZY just putting her hand bag on the floor to have the person next to her moved.
republican and proud off it.

"If the Queen places her handbag on the table at dinner, it signals that she wants the event to end in the next five minutes, if she puts her bag on the floor, it shows she’s not enjoying the conversation and wants to be rescued by her lady-in-waiting.” One more item of significance that the Queen carries is a “crisply ironed £5 or £10 note.” This, however, is something she only carries with her on Sundays as an offering at church. Otherwise the Queen reportedly never carries money in her purse or in her pockets. Philips Azur Elite GC5039/30 – best luxe steam iron is used for ironing the 5 quid , he charges naval commander rates about 40 quid/hr.

Qantas has royal special seats with Oxford hostesses and same for republicans with 20% loading for oil-presidents. The $240m. RAAF planes for PM are way too small carrying only 40 bums and who knows what a republic would need. Defence confirmed it was "managing the modification", with the cost to come from $190 million already set aside to alter planes according to the air force's needs. Britain managed it for £10 million, which equates to about $16.5 million. The Queen gets rent subsidy for a few rooms above the Pall Mall restaurant she runs for overseas dictators.

The biggest reason against a Republic, and it's only one of many, is that as much as people pushing the agenda keep filling the heads of Aussies with messages of praise and aptitude thereby creating ego's the size of football fields, it unfortunately for the pro-Republican movement, does not address the fact that they are attempting to evade/avoid the obvious.
Not only are people mis-informed, un-informed or ultimately, just plain stupid, they are simply not in a position to decide who the leader of an Australian Republic should be let alone vote at all.
Then there is another obvious con-job.
Who chooses the applicants?
We are removing the safeguards of the 'direct' link to the Monarchy for a 'cast adrift' option of anarchy!
The theme of Foxy's link is just another pro-republican pushing an old and worn out agenda.
If we are supposed to be swayed by the few words on that link, sadly for the pro-rep mob, it's just another of the same boorish message we have heard again and again.
And as usual carries no actual or factual content which would justify, supporting, let alone promoting, their agenda.
I have no doubt that one day we may see just another typically Aussie, f@)&ed up decision, get implemented, like the Republic and so we just might end up, 'up sh!t creek without a paddle' yet.

Foxy,

Is that link the best that you can find?

It was interesting, but it only gives a few REASONS and reasons aren't BENEFITS; can no one find a benefit to becoming a republic?

He says, "A Republic is a democratic nation in which the highest public office is held not by a monarch, who inherits the position by birth, but instead by a citizen chosen on merit."

Being a bit careless, is he not?

How would the electors choose a President on merit, or is the preferred system the one that was rejected, choice by the politicians?
Fat chance for merit there!!
Not all of the World's Republics have been democratic and not all of the Monarchies have been heredity, some have been by election.

Belly,

Have you found any benefits yet?

Ise Mise how does one answer you? any list even ten posts long will not be considered as an answer by you.
However the warm feeling comes over me every time you ask silly questions.
See becoming a republic is a sure bet.
It is NOT telling Briton to shove it.
Not sell this country out to communists, right wing groups, not a plot to make us part of a one world government.
In fact it is nothing to fear.
It is evolution, we are no longer England,s baby, like all children , *most of us*, grew up long ago.
Kids leave home, go their own way, have their own thoughts and ideas.
Again face it, you are trying to throw stones at what you see is a threat, no threat exists, we will always have our shared history,
We however will be equal not in any way a child refusing to leave home

We got our free portrait of the Britannic Majesty in colour with halo and join the local council in evening worship on bended knees. Gough was nice but his kangaroo skin cloak was a bit tacky. We are equal with English who grovel to Elizabeth II and with Scots who call her Eliz I due to less miracles north of the Tweed. Genuine diggers do the full prostrate Aussie crawl around the palace at Yarralumla and get a gumleaf to suck.

Just a few more details on the bottom of France. Where exactly is it Belly? Found the arse of US. Foggy Bottom is one of the oldest late 18th- and 19th-century neighborhoods in Washington, D.C.

//Just a few more details on the bottom of France. Where exactly is it Belly?//

There's a town called Anus in Burgundy.

Ah , like pickled eels then?

ANUS, must be the place old Liz was talking about in her bad year.
See Princess whats her name just got wed on the public purse.
Will the British have to pay for the divorce too?
Will her kids become Dukes and Duchesses or Lords and Lady,s
Monty Python like family that lot

Bullets are expensive and bring men to their knees. Republics are keen on making them bow to their fate. US Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in Arthur v. Dunn: "In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless ... And historically, the firing squad has yielded significantly fewer botched executions."
France aimed to let the head drop to the bottom.

Belly,

"See Princess whats her name just got wed on the public purse"

Is that so?

Who gets the dosh for the TV rights etc?

What are the benefits of us becoming a republic, Belly?

Obviously, you can't name one, else you'd have done so long ago.

Do go on insulting the Australian Head of State, makes it plain for all to see your commitment to our country.

If Australia became a republic then maybe Bill Shorten could give even more money in tax relief to big business, even arrange for one of his big business mates to be president.

Is Mise, you have touched on one of the strong points against a becoming a Republic.
This crap about either the people or the govt choosing the 'President' is exactly one of the flaws of a Republic over a Monarchy.
The govt choosing the candidates is absolutely, NOT an option.
The people choosing one is also NOT an option.
Where the govt's choice is heavily stacked or tainted with corruption and nepotism, the other choice; the people choosing, is also just as bad, because the people, have NO idea about the candidates, who will be contaminated by being govt backed moles and just as dishonest or corrupt.
As I've already said, a Monarch is already wealthy so they don't need to steal from us.
They have been 'preparing' for the role of ruler, 'from birth'.
Anyone else is NOT prepared or endowed with the qualities and virtues of someone who is naturally born into the position.
History tells us that if a Monarch 'goes off the rails', they will quickly be dealt with by the people.
The odds of this happening are very rare.
The odds of getting a 'dud' president are very high.
Mr 'T' being point in case, even though I like him, and it's not because of his business acumen, but more because of his being a down-to-earth normal guy, referring mainly, to his social indiscretions.
So if people still promote the Republic, after being told of these facts, then they are being malevolent, deceitful, malicious and social deviants.
And so it is that they are to be ignored, for the sake of the rest of us with a full compliment of reason, common sense, morals and ethics.

nicknamenick any chance that bright brain can get involved in threads with thoughts we can follow?
PS any relation to ise mise?
Ise Mise, need to do better, know you can read last ten of my posts, see answers to that question, bloke, try harder you have it in you
regards
This proud Aussie of convict stock is well aware things went down hill after they exported the very best they had here in chains

Belly,

Squirm as much as you like, you haven't answered the question of how a republic would benefit Australians.

You can't answer because there is obviously no benefit.

ANYBODY, how shall we benefit?

How are you going with Shorten's tax cuts for business, Belly?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/bill-shorten-backs-down-on-company-tax-cuts/9923246

Belly,
Here's the translation:
"Bullets are expensive ."
The royal wedding cost but so do republicans. According to the Brookings Institution's Bradley Patterson, the cost to taxpayers running the White House under President Obama was $1.4 billion per year. Markle and Prince Harry's wedding will reportedly cost in excess of $45.8 million, according to Bride Book's estimation.

"and bring men to their knees. Republics are keen on making them bow to their fate ".
Republic firing squads make men bend their knees. This is due to life terminating. The knee joints bend. The knee-owner appear to bow down to republican riflemen.

The knee: Anatomy, injuries, treatment, and rehabilitation
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/299204.php

"US Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in Arthur v. Dunn: "In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless ... And historically, the firing squad has yielded significantly fewer botched executions."
Shooting makes dead men great . Americans vote and shoot. Or just shoot.

"France aimed to let the head drop to the bottom. "
The guillotine delivers a fresh head into the base of the basket , hygienically and untouched by human hands . Royals are the head people or were until they lost it.

Ise Mise you have had your answers andin truth have me concerned are you ok?
do you read others posts
pride in country.
End forever colonial links, stop pommys complaining
Australian head of state
return England,s insult when it joined the EU
join the republican nations around the world in saying we are our own country
Stop Royal lovers telling us we must share their views

Insult ? EU? Ah the king of Belgium you mean with British coal-miners tugging on their cloth caps and doing an Islamic crawl up to the throne. Britain is now full of praise for her convicted and proud royal serfs downunder giving their pennies for the wedding collection. Here's her gratitude: Worth over A$815 billion in total two-way investment, this relationship spans decades and crosses all sectors of each economy. If you bite the hand the corgis will get you.

//ANYBODY, how shall we benefit?//

I can't see any except for avoiding the obvious pitfalls of hereditary monarchy, i.e. the Charles the Bewitched and Joffrey Baratheons. Bad hereditary monarchs can be difficult to remove from office, and the laws of succession don't take into account a person's fitness for office, just their family tree.

As I've said before, we need an Australian monarchy of our own. And rather than rely on the dodgy hereditary monarchy model which I presume was introduced by the bloody frogs after the Norman conquest, we should go back to the Anglo-Saxon model and introduce something along the lines of The Witenagemot to elect the monarch. Only to make it a bit more democratic it should be open to all eligible voters. And to minimise corruption, fraud, etc., it should of course be handled by the AEC. Oh, and we should have fixed terms for our monarchs; say 4-5 years, and then reconvene The Witenagemot to elect the next monarch.

There we go, sorted.

Belly,

Getting desperate?

"Ise Mise you have had your answers andin truth have me concerned are you ok?
do you read others posts
[yes]

pride in country.
[we already have it, are you not proud of your country?]

End forever colonial links,
[the colonial links are there and will remain forever]

stop pommys complaining
[that's no benefit, and impossible anyway]

Australian head of state
[that's a benefit??]

return England,s insult when it joined the EU
[no benefit there either, just a bit of supposed revenge]

join the republican nations around the world in saying we are our own country
[now that' really going to benefit the ordinary Australian]

Stop Royal lovers telling us we must share their views
[that's no benefit either]
anyhow which of the Royal lovers have been guilty?
Prince Harry perhaps?

What could be a small benefit, though to only a few Australians would be if you noticed that the possessive sign (') goes up the top and not down the bottom (.).

What are the tangible benefits, like less tax, better roads, better hospitals, more medical services in the country, increased Old Age Pension, more money for education etc.?

Witanegemot. Port Elliot is a town in South Australia toward the eastern end of the south coast of the Fleurieu Peninsula ... The location had been previously known as Freeman's Knob; the aboriginal name for the area may have been "Witengangool".

Is Mise,

One of the tangible benefits of becoming a Republic
is that it would mean that any Australian could
aspire to be the person embodying the ultimate
source of executive authority in Australia. It would
signal to the world that we are wholly independent both
in appearance and in fact, because we would no longer have
a foreigner as our monarch.

Also under our colonial Constitution, Britain retained the
power to make laws for Australia and it has the power to
overturn Australians laws made by the Australian Parliament.
Surely changing that would be a benefit for us all if we want to
be an independent nation.

Anyway, as has been stated on this discussion many times -
the decision is up to Australians to make. It's subjective.
If you see no benefits as to what's as to what's being placed in front of you - fair enough.

However, many do see the benefits -
and ultimately it will be up to people to make their
final choice. Regarding - education, health-care -
and other issues - those will be decisions that our
elected Parliament will make. Future decisions
will no longer have to be referenced to any other authority.
And that fact alone - many see as a tangible benefit.

"Stop Royal lovers telling us we must share their views".
Not when they're old and wrinkly anyway it's voyeurism.

The former Prime Minister of Portugal, António Guterres, is the next United Nations Secretary-General. Unlike Mrs May , he can force Canberra to its knees funded by D Trump .

Ise Mise drop the Royal lovers/toe suckers, the list is long and you do not want to go there.
Now Harry, top bloke! by far the best of them! seen the pictures of his DAD sorry one of mums boyfriends?
Out standing! seems he may have not a drop of the Royal blood decades indeed centuries of inbreeding gave them.
Well mum would have given him some.
Inbreeding, remember?
Enjoy finding heaps to be insulted by in this post ask me no question if you do not want to see my answers

I'm against convict blood being compulsory for the Life President or President of the Month. This includes bank executives , union officials , cricketer cheats, OLO spam and barrier reef wreckers.

Foxy,

"One of the tangible benefits of becoming a Republic
is that it would mean that any Australian could
aspire to be the person embodying the ultimate
source of executive authority in Australia"

That's not a tangible benefit and, even if it were, most Australians (99.9999%) would never enjoy the benefit.

Belly,

I'm not afraid of your answers, only amused, just answer the question as to how most (even a few) Australians would be better off under a republic.

Is Mise,

Most Australians would certainly enjoy the benefit of
being able to aspire to be the person embodying the
ultimate source of the executive authority in Australia,
instead of having an unelected foreigner forced on them
as their monarch.

Also it would also benefit not to have a foreign country retain
the power to make laws for Australia, and to overturn
laws made by the Australian Parliament.

But I get that you don't have a problem with any of that.
So as I stated earlier - fair enough.

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

The Queen, royal family, knights and dames, have ceased to
have any relevance for the majority of Australians. (remember
Tony Abbott - and the prince Philip fiasco?).

Declaring Australia a republic - the biggest benefit for
the country would be that Australia becomes a nation where
its government formally gets all its power from its people,
not from some ancient royal family in some distant land.
The royals have nothing to do with modern Australia.

It is absurd that the head of state is chosen by hereditary
right (a lottery) and even more absurd that the head of
state isn't even native nor resides in the country of which they
are head.

All power in Australia should be in the hands of elected
Australians who are answerable to the laws of the nation
and the people of the country. Power should be in the
hands of those who wield it as a service to the people and
those in power should never think that the people are in
service to them. (The Queen may disallow any law).

It has been said that the UK abandoned Australia in WW2 when
the Japanese invaded PNG. Will the UK do the same to
Australia in the 21st Century?

If Australia is happy to have a monarchy without the
monarch actually being here at all, it makes sense they'd be
happy without a monarchy. I doubt they'd miss her much.

The benefit of republic is aspiration to be top gun which applies from the moment a baby's eyes are opened. Industries include supplying President's security guards with Pacifico Optical dark glasses , of Bondi Beach.
Metal Storm Limited did research and development in Brisbane in electronically initiated superposed load weapons which China wants but didn't get from a proud Australia who was on his knees financially but will die for his president.
Holden's design corporation will handle convoy vehicles , welding mining truck engines onto armoured hearses.
Aerial security comes under the Space Agency CCTV drones with Tasmanian oak and Jarrah inlays. Communication won't be in Queens' English but west Sydney Vietnamese-German as a colonial benefit.

Ise Mise, are you getting enough sleep? must be hard trying to amuse and only failing, you know, as I do, this subject is now on the national agenda, if two thirds vote yes.
You will still claim it has no benefits
And yes like the two kids in a school yard you deny seeing any reason from me on why it would be better.
Verbal tennis still needs some strings in the racket, yours may be ten feet around but you can not even life it.
Checked up on Harrys dad? photo looks like twins

"If Australia is happy to have a monarchy without the
monarch actually being here at all, it makes sense they'd be
happy without a monarchy. I doubt they'd miss her much. "

We only see the GGen when he writes a ticket for the latest PM to come through the swing door or for the shiny scrubbed-up election champions. Probably Oz will have a minimum change , keep everything as is in Parliament with new name for the rubber stamp who won't be visible much. Particularly after the red head clown with pot belly and twit tweets.

Foxy, I just can't let your latest comments through without corrections.
Firstly, I absolutely agree, that most Aussies will want to 'run Australia'.
That's a reason AGAINST a republic, not for one.
As for having an un-elected Monarch 'forced' upon us.
Again you are being dis-ingenious and extremely misleading.
The Monarch of a country is not forced upon anyone.
Remember, most 'Aussies' 'came' here.
The 'forced' ones are few so don't matter anyway.
Monarchs are the rightful 'owners' of a country, by international standards.
Those standards still apply today.
If people don't like it, too bad.
If a country attacked another and war ensued, the resultant victors would own the spoils, of war.
This means the 'country or countries' they conquered.
Now if this is what you mean by 'forced' then again, too bad, change the conventions of war and peace.
Appeal to the UN, but in the meantime, Australia, belongs to Liz, and we ARE her royal subjects and we DO enjoy her protection in every sense of the word.
And it is because she has the power over parliament that I find to be one of the attractions of remaining a Monarchy.
Republicans are being arrogant and showing their 'YOBBO' and lower social breeding, by 'disparaging anyone THEY consider to be of higher standing and worth than themselves'.
So far all the negatives raised by republicans are all theories based on 'best guess' reasoning, so they are all invalid, or un-proven and therefore, un-acceptable.
All the reasons given by the pro-Monarchists, are historical, tried and proven over hundreds of years and therefore facts and therefore NOT THEORIES!
So what we will be asked to vote on in the future is whether we want, just another thief and con-man in the top job, (and this time it will be, the TOP JOB, without the queens protections) or do we want stability, safety, security knowing exactly what to expect and the fact that we have someone to turn to or looking over our shoulder, keeping things in check, because it is a well proven fact, WE CAN'T!

Theory is nice and Kim Jong Un is lovely.
North Korea Article 64.
The State shall effectively guarantee genuine democratic rights .
67.
Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association.
68.
Citizens have freedom of religious beliefs.

The only person without freedom in UK was the heir to the throne if he married a Catholic until 2013 but now he has the freedom all North Koreans enjoy. Or slightly more.

Foxy,

"Most Australians would certainly enjoy the benefit of
being able to aspire to be the person embodying the
ultimate source of the executive authority in Australia"

Most Australians couldn't care less about such an aspiration, just as most don't get any benefit from being able to aspire to be GG or PM or Governor or Premier of any of the States'
There is as much tangible benefit in aspiration as there is in expiration (except as in the expelling of air from the lungs in normal breathing).

Belly,

Just tell us one real benefit, there's* a good lad.

*Note the position of the ' in there's above.

Is Mise,

You're wrong about many Australians.

A lot can happen in the next few years.

Will it be easy?
Nope.
Worth it?
Absolutely!

See you on another discussion.

Foxy,

"You're wrong about many Australians."

Wow!! Do you aspire to be President?

Or any of the other high offices of State?

I really don't think that but a minuscule few do, however, I could be wrong, so, as you say that I'm wrong pray tell us all where I am wrong?

Just how many Australians aspire to high offices of State?

Isi, I'll take this one.
My response to Foxy on that point alone was a little, 'tongue in cheek'.
The reason I say 'everyone' will want to 'run Australia', is because if you break down the opinions and mentality of most Aussies, they can ALL do a better job than the fleas who keep vying for the job.
Think about it, if these clowns are, and have been the best people for the job, well I'll let their record speak for them.
They're so busy fighting over who is going to hold the keys to the 'piggy bank', we don't know from one day to the next who's the PM.
These people are mentally ill and consider themselves to be better than us, and if you think it would get better as a Republic, think again, only this time take out the emotion and just work with the facts.
So yes everyone thinks they can run Australia, just ask them.
My point;
I don't care for anyone who THINKS they can do something.
I only care about who CAN do something, and that's not all, I want to see HOW WELL, they do what they say they can do.
Unfortunately, Australia has failed abysmally in the this area.
Just a quick look at the performance of previous Australian govt's gives us a quick look at their history and report cards.
By comparison, the Monarchy and Lizy have been solid, unchanged and stable for DECADES compared to the garbage govt's we have had to endure.
So, on final analysis, just on this topic alone, Australia has proven that it is incapable of 'self rule'.
And so there it is, Republic of Australia Yes or No?
NO!

ALTRAV,

" and if you think it would get better as a Republic, think again, only this time take out the emotion and just work with the facts."

I thought that I'd made it plain that I think that the idea of an Australian Republic stinks.

And it is only self-proclaimed morons of Belly's ilk who think so and not one of them can tell us of any tangible benefits that a republic would bring to the ordinary Aussie.

That said I don't think that Belly is a stupid as he makes out, there are some tell-tale signs that he is making himself out to be a simple uneducated fellow.

Isi, if you read the first couple of lines, I was responding to Foxys post.
My opening line was to suggest I will answer her on her comments.
As I said; "Isi, I'll take this one".
Rest assured, I am on the side of the Monarchy.
The question of finding reasons as to why we should become a Republic, just don't 'stack up'.
Every reason put up for a Republic is easily knocked down because they are superfluous and unjustified.
One of the more compelling reasons against it is the corruption and theft will go unchecked and be more rampant and aggressive than it has ever been.
Choosing the President cannot be left to the parliament or the people.
The former are too corrupt, and the latter are too ignorant and un-informed to be trusted to make the right decision.
The King or Queen were born into the position and so have been 'training' for the role from birth.
A monarchy is a very stable form of governance, at it's worst it has been many times more stable than democracies, especially Australia.
Electing people from the population with no formal training for the role of Prime Minister or President, is fraught with danger and failures of performance.
Think Mr D Trump.
Again, just look at our govt's performance over the years.
It's a shame that too many people are too stupid or retarded, stopping themselves from accepting what they know, to be the truth.
This foolish mantra of not having some foreigner as our 'head of state' shows us how stupid they are.
In case they have to be reminded as emotions have clouded their judgement, but a quick history lesson will highlight the fact that firstly nearly ALL of the first settlers were from the UK.
Since then they have come from EVERYWHERE, so having a foreigner as a head of state is perfectly appropriate.
So, will it be 'worth it'?
Absolutely, definitely, positively NOT!

//not one of them can tell us of any tangible benefits that a republic would bring to the ordinary Aussie.//

Just out of interest, what benefits does the British monarchy offer us that an Australian monarchy wouldn't?

HARRY IS HERE! stand and cheer~! good bloke shame that he may, well look at the photos, not be Charlies son.
A very good time in bed has been had by the Royals for generations.
Still mum would have Royal blood , inbreeding you know.
Tampons and all that,,those tapes!!
Bit of a flaw there in the family we love so much.
Hang on, maybe Shane Warne has what it takes all in favor of King Shayne?

Cosgrove has sons but not sure about their accents , he's a bit nasal. A political president is not always the same matter as 'head of state'. In Germany the head is symbolic like Britain's German symbol. Barossa valley has good Germans and the Barossa Valley railway line has several branches, running from Gawler Central station into and through the Barossa Valley and trains there arrive on time.

Toni, 'Australian Monarchy'?
I'll tell you what, because Prince Charles already has a connection to Australia, (he schooled here) but he will become King Charles upon his mothers demise, so he will have to reside in England as is customary, but, we can aspire to having Prince William as our 'Australian Monarch' in residence.
This idea fits well because he is the next heir to the throne after his father, so this would be like an apprenticeship for him, and we would have a 'Monarch' as our own rightful head of state.
Thank God it will never be an Aussie.
Wouldn't that be ironic, everyone flapping on about not being a colony under the protections of 'mother England'.
It is exactly the same as the prisoners demanding the warden leave so the prisoners can run themselves, which also involved giving them the keys to the safe and the main gate.
You ask what the benefits would be by remaining a Monarchy?
I respond by asking what the benefits are by becoming a republic?
I can say, with proof of other countries as examples, that by becoming a Republic, we will be MORE vulnerable to the antics of dishonest and corrupt officials, many times worse than under the tutelage of a higher and independent authority, like the Royal family.
As a Republic, WE the people WILL be WORSE OFF!

"aspire to having Prince William as our 'Australian Monarch' in residence. This idea fits well ".
Harold gave his house to William then to some other relo which made William crook , the Bastard, and he sailed in his first fleet with cut throats , marines and gardening tools which none of them knew how to use. Anyway , to cut a yarn short, he speared the natives ,stopped their dances and became a sheep cocky.

To coincide with Harry's victory in an act of extraordinary generosity the Crown has released a $1 colonial dollar dated 2019, giving 11 weeks time saving. Coins will be dispensed by HM council mayors , one at a time , to orphans , waifs , strays, peasants and villeins. Republicans and Irish need not apply, plus GST ( Greenwich Saving Time).

Anyone got any ww2 DVDs? find myself a refugee from free TV in an effort not to see Harry and his bride.
16 days! gawd!
add that to my list ise mise no more Royal visits.
NNN not sure but you seem to be enjoying yourself what ever you said

From a French cradle to the English crown
In 1028, an unmarried French woman bore a son to the Duke of Normandy. People taunted the boy with the nickname ‘William the Bastard’. Yet he not only became a formidable Norman ruler: he became one of England's most brutal and influential kings.

From the Battle of Hastings to the Domesday Book, William was responsible for truly extraordinary events in England's history. Find out how a brutal childhood, some lucky breaks and a festering angry grudge shaped the man who changed Britain forever. Fighting prince Harry the Redhead for control of the Corgis , a helicopter squadron hunting Russian aircraft carriers in Port of Philip Bay, William the Bald and Tall fights the bastards who call him a bastard in 2019.

2019 date on Australian one dollar coin sparks time travel debatehttps://au.news.yahoo.com/bizarre-detail-discovered-back-1-coin-205709071.html
8 hours ago - It might look like any other Aussie dollar, but people are losing their ... The one dollar coin had social media users insisting time travel

SBS poll today Monday new poll shows 52.4 percent of Australians want a republic.
Maybe my thoughts are not minority ones
See poll SBS online site or read in goggle news

Belly,

You've got a lot of idiot mates.

The whole world, with a few sane exceptions, celebrated 2,000 as the Millenium year and they were wrong, by a whole year.
Likewise, Australian Republicans who think that becoming a republic is of any importance whatsoever.

Tell me one, just a teeny one, benefit that would come to the ordinary Australian from us becoming a republic.

//we can aspire to having Prince William as our 'Australian Monarch'//

Sorry to point out the obvious, but he's not Australian. He's English.

//You ask what the benefits would be by remaining a Monarchy?//

No I didn't. I asked: what benefits does the British monarchy offer us that an Australian monarchy wouldn't?

You've talked a lot about the benefits of a monarchy, but made no effort to explain why that monarchy has to be British for a country to enjoy those benefits. Don't the Scandinavian nations, for example, enjoy much the same benefits from their respective monarchies?

//I respond by asking what the benefits are by becoming a republic?//

That's great, but I haven't said we should become a republic. I think we should remain a monarchy, with a different monarch to Britain. Quite easy to do, you just amend our Succession to the Crown Act so that when Her Majesty dies, the succession in Australia flows to an Australian rather than the Prince of Wales. I prefer a model of succession where the monarch is elected, although I realise that some of you are very wedded to the idea of hereditary succession because it's more romantic.

//a higher and independent authority, like the Royal family.//

My, you're quite the obsequious little forelock-tugger, aren't you? Tell me, ALTRAV, do you also believe that the Queen's touch can cure scrofula?

Not sure what you consider so special about the British monarchy, though. Seems to me that any constitutional monarchy is much the same as the next, in terms of the monarch's involvement in governing

How about the millions we would save in not
having to pay for royal visits?
The last Queen's visit in 2011 cost us millions
of dollars, then there was Charles and Camilla's
visit, now we have Prince Harry and his wife.
By becoming a republic we could well use any of
taxpayer money currently spent on the royals on things
that would benefit the average Australians.
Such as exempting first home buyers from stamp duty
altogether - helping with homelessness, putting food
on people's tables and son on.

How about that? Is that good enough for you?
Or would you still rather support these people -
who have money of their own and are more than capable to
pay for themselves?

The Polish Lithuanian monarchy.

The political doctrine of the Commonwealth was our state is a republic under the presidency of the King. Chancellor Jan Zamoyski summed up this doctrine when he said that "The King reigns but does not govern". The Commonwealth had a parliament, the Sejm, as well as a Senat and an elected king . These came from royal families so some British spares could do the job or unemployed German royals. They would get rent assistance if they do a few royal visits each week.

Ise Mise! bloke I respect you! every bit as much as you respect me, ZERO.
You in that post, gee in almost every one! tell me the world is full of idiots only you are right.
ruok?
52.4 percent are quite mad Ise Mise told me.
Bloke think about it

Belly,

You described yourself as a moron and I respect your opinion.

But, you and I know that you are not, your stupidity is contrived as an analysis of your posts shews.

Toni, we can't just choose a Monarch.
Australia belongs to QEII because she inherited the Commonwealth and all that her ancestors owned at the time.
You can 'elect' a President and a Prime Minister, not a Monarch.
So we accept a Royal as they become the ultimate ruler.
It might be hard for 'commoners' to accept, but the concept of Kings and Queens goes back a long way, and so it is that lands were acquired through wars and other acts to get control of anothers land and people to rule over.
Foxy, I think your being egregious and misleading by your accusations of the Royal family costing us money.
Any mention of cost is an accounting one.
The cost of visits and so on are already there because like the military or law enforcement, they are on a yearly salary.
The only thing that changes is their daily duties.
Any extra goods or services required are minimal and so add little to the costs.
When a 'cost of a visit' is mentioned, it is not referring to an extraordinary expense, but an extract of the summary of what it would cost if paid for in isolation.
So NO the Royals don't cost us anywhere near the amounts quoted.
And besides, whether we like it or not, and I know Republicans don't like it, because she 'owns' Australia; in reality she can do whatever she likes.
Let's face it this republic thing has nothing to do with self governance and everything to do with the fact that those pushing for a Republic suffer from an inferiority complex and are incensed by the idea that they are beholding to another person and obviously consider themselves to be of a lower cast.
It's no different than any other wealthy man 'willing' his fortune and assets to his oldest child.
When a country has expressed a wish to become a republic she has let them, even though she can refuse.
So when that fateful day finally arrives you will all get your wish.
Be very careful what you wish for.

An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case.

Ise Mise what is the point of trying? you display the understanding of a well rotted corner post on an outback farm.
The joy of a very cranky old man/woman/mother in law.
You are as welcoming to new posters as an ice shower in Antarctica.
Moron? mate I could have said that about you!
Why however would I WANT TO FLATTER YOU?
Be happy, grin, tickle yourself, try to smile, I understand!
You are doing the best you can.

Malaysia and Vatican have elected kings. Pope of Australia should get a few contestants.

Harry is looking great,, his dad will be proud of him.
Prince Charles will be too

yes and his uncle.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/spencer-gty-2-er-170726_4x3_992.jpg

"You are doing the best you can"

Indeed I am, Belly, and like you, I can't think of one benefit that being a republic would bring.

As an avowed Irish Republican, I still can't see one benefit for Australia becoming one, nor any good reasons.

Daylight saving time 2018 in Republic of Ireland began at 1:00 am on
Sunday, 25 March
and ends at 2:00 am on
Sunday, 28 October
All times are in Ireland Time.
their curtains are already ruined

It's not whether the monarch is Australian, but Australia is monarch's with 's. not `s ^s #s
It's like you book into a motel , evict the manager and his kids and ask what's the problem , there's more guests than managers. And you can't say it proper , it's "horstrailia". Yanks are worse , arstralia.

well done Ise Mise, a post without an insult, you look much better when you smile.
We differ, 52.4 percent agree with me, makes me wrong?

//As an avowed Irish Republican, I still can't see one benefit for Australia becoming one, nor any good reasons.//

I do note, however, that you have been strenuously avoiding my questions about the benefits of a British monarch over an Australian monarch.

What's wrong, can't you think of any? Just one meaningful benefit will do. Or even a good reason. Please note that 'tradition', in isolation, isn't a good reason. Never has been. Traditions are only worth hanging onto if they hold some other value in addition to tradition.

//Toni, we can't just choose a Monarch.//

Why not? The Anglo-Saxons did exactly that for hundreds of years before the Normans invaded. Why should we prefer the French model of succession over the original Anglo-Saxon model?

//You can 'elect' a President and a Prime Minister, not a Monarch.//

Yeah, try telling that to King (emphasis on 'King') Athelstan.

Toni,

Sorry, didn't note that you were directing the question to me; an Australian monarch is fine by me, along with the ancient systems of election.
Just that, as I said before re. a president, no one who has held elected office in any of the parliaments should be allowed to stand.

Wouldn't be much different to an elected president but sounds better.

Belly,

"well done Ise Mise, a post without an insult, you look much better when you smile.
We differ, 52.4 percent agree with me, makes me wrong"

If the 52.4% are wrong, then 'Yes'.

When/where did I insult you?

//an Australian monarch is fine by me, along with the ancient systems of election.//

Capital!

Now, those who favour having an Australian as our official head of state: any reason to prefer a President over an Australian constitutional monarch, if said monarch is elected?

"The Tánaiste (Irish pronunciation: speaker {|) ( which is just horrible) is the deputy head of government of Ireland and thus its second-most senior office. The Tánaiste is appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Taoiseach".
The Celtic tanist was the elected chief / king next in succession , like vice-president. So Ireland has a Clayton's king , mid-Atlantic . Australian of the Year, the mechanic from Gondjawullupbool NT who feeds magpies on daylight saving time would be the bloke for the big pointy hat. With Bendigo nuggets on strings around the brim.

Toni, I think what you are suggesting is the stuff of the Barbarians, it goes back that far I can't even remember anything about the practice.
I think we have come a little further along since the world was in it's three figure age.
The reason we have a hereditary system is because it is the correct one, following proto-col from centuries ago.
Now if this makes a few Reps uncomfortable or whatever, TOO BAD!
If you people are so far up yourselves that you are so desperate to hand Australia back to the 'convicts', well I'm not!
Once you have killed of or assassinated ALL the royals, and the blood line is no more, then you can start thinking about what you want to call the thief or thieves you give the keys to the safe to.
Until then, we have a rightful ruler and whether she chooses to live here or in Bosnia, is just geography.
You Reps are just going to have to wait a little longer.
In the meantime you might want to put some feelers out for some 'hit men'.
I hear Russia has a few looking for work.
There, don't say I am not thinking about you.

Belly,

Thanks for that big compliment.

"Once you have killed of or assassinated ALL the royals"
Is Mise has the life of Brian , king of the Irish , mead man of Meath, 45 rounds a second with blindfold , Lord of Pedantry.

The Venetians will be opened in 1 hour from now. Venetians first proclaimed one Anafestus Paulicius duke in 697.

Let me be frank, got far too flippant in my posts here.
Following some, defending my right to be proud of my Republican stand.
Even in defending one view early on the thread was/is and always will be an unwanted waste of print.
We got a few posts after that, Ise Mise, a poster I just can not understand, but have no lasting concerns with, made me forget.
It is my view we Aussies can still hold any view we wish, that my view here is not anti British, just anti a family that should be on TV just for the sexual athletics of its every member,, not asking me to bend my knee.
We will become a Republic only when is unknown
IF you are not aware goggle Diana's boyfriends, look for the question who is Harry's dad? see the photos
Then tell me a TV show based on the Royals olympic skills in bed hoping would not be a huge thing
Name? *game of Royal groans*,

//I think what you are suggesting is the stuff of the Barbarians//

Anglo-Saxons were not barbarians, ALTRAV. It's fascinating to watch you reveal your true colours, though. All that patriotic flag-waving on behalf of dear old mother England is a sham; when push comes to shove you side with the Normans... a Francophile in sheep's clothing. Well here's what I think of your precious Normans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRLCBb7qK8

Won't you fight the frogs?

//The reason we have a hereditary system is because it is the correct one//

Oh yes? What makes it correct?

//If you people are so far up yourselves that you are so desperate to hand Australia back to the 'convicts'//

Yeah, the whole 'convict' thing is a bit overblown. The number of convicts who were transported here are dwarfed by the numbers of free settlers. I have no convict ancestors, and I am far from alone in that respect. Most Australians don't.

//Once you have killed of or assassinated ALL the royals//

O....kay.

//Until then, we have a rightful ruler//

Yeah, I'm not suggesting we depose Her Majesty. What I'm suggesting is that we change our act of succession... in other words, the crown doesn't change hands until the Queen dies. But when she does, that the successor in Australia be chosen by different rules than the British rules of succession.

They'll still get King Charles III of Britain and wherever, and we'll get our very own King/Queen Whoever of Australia. No fuss, no bother, no need for any silly rebellions or revolutions or any of your other violent fantasies, just a minor tweak to the rules of succession.

Toni, OK let me enlighten you.
"what makes it correct?"
Because it is so.
The doctrine has been so for centuries so by it's very existence and practice over the centuries has entrenched the proto-col into being in the current form, as it is.
Unchanged.
The ritual or the practice is not for commoners.
Toni, if you can muster up enough followers to overthrow the Aust govt, and any other challengers, you may then decide whatever you wish to be called and set up your own set of rules and proto-col for the succession of your position when you decide.
Any reference to convicts still applies.
Just because your lineage MIGHT not harbour any convict blood,(proof?)does not mean the rest of the population doesn't.
So I'm going with the fact that MOST Aussies who's ancestors date back to the period of colonisation, which by todays numbers, will be a majority and will have convict ancestors, I'll stick with my point.
Surely even you know that you have to end a line of successors to the throne before you can look outside the bloodline.
So yes for your plan to work ALL the royals have to die.
No we don't get "whoever".
That's what we have now.
So If you don't want a KING, which you can't justify, unless they OWN a 'kingdom', they can be a Prime Minister, President, Dictator and so on.
That act or even suggestion alone says more about your mindset than anything I could come up with.
Your comments are those of someone with a superiority complex.
Your comments are those of left leaning commoner bias.
What you argue is pointless.
We already have a Queen of Australia and Charles III will be King of Australia.
You or I can't change that, get used to it because that is the fact.
QEII IS OUR QUEEN! She is also the queen of all the other countries she still owns.
What the hell makes Australia so special she has to reside here?
She IS our head of state and that's it.
"just a minor tweak of succession".
Really?

ALTRAV try to be truthful please she IS NOT THE QUEEN OF ALL COUNTRIES
we can tell charlie to POQ he can not stop us please please stay in the general area of truth
stop insisting we must agree with you.

Belly, I can now see why you cause such angst among other commentors.
I'm not sure what your point is by saying 'she is not the queen of all countries'.
I KNOW THAT.
If you go back and read my comments I said,'she is also the queen of all the other countries 'SHE STILL OWNS''.
Have you got it now?
And BTW, your attitude won't stop King Charles III in any way.
He will be our king and rule over us and ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES HE WILL 'OWN'.
So please get your facts right because all you've said so far are your 'opinions'.
When Australia eventually becomes a republic, and what another sorry day that will be, he won't stop us from becoming a Republic, so don't get your knickers in a knot.
In the meantime, to correct you.
I have gone beyond the general area by telling the actual truth.
You in your left handed, commoner mindset, don't want to acknowledge the truth.
As the, now famous movie lines went, 'you want the truth, you can't handle the truth'.
Belly, a suggestion, before you write anything, just Google it first, you just might be surprised at what you find.
If you don't want to believe me or other commentors maybe you'll believe Google.
Either way, it can't hurt to check.

Piracy Act 1698 ." any individual who may “.., command, counsel, or advise” persons to commit any act of piracy “shall be deemed and adjudged to be accessory to such piracy”.

Prior to his departure for New South Wales, Phillip received his Instructions (composed by Lord Sydney) from King George III, 'with the advice of his Privy Council'. . An amended Commission, dated 25 April 1787, designated the territory of New South Wales as including 'all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean' and running westward to the 135th meridian, that is, about mid-way through the continent. Regrettably , the UN has now cancelled British title to Australia and Interpol are investigating.
British Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 :UN Law of the Sea (1982):

Article 101
Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, by the crew of a private ship (ii) against persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship

A ship is considered a pirate ship if it is for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101.

Captain Cook gave pirated property to George III but it wasn't James fault, George made him do it and got real mad.

Here is some interesting information for those
monarchists among us:

You are all entitled to receive a free portrait of the
Queen (and flags, and other stuff) from your federal
Member of Parliament. You have to be able to vote, that
is - be an Australian Citizen - and all you have to do
is contact the office of your federal MP and the material
will be sent to you.

This comes under the "constituents" request program -
and is available to all voters. It is fully funded by the
government. It is not a joke. I checked up on it. And it
is real. It's not advertised - but apparently it's been
in existence for some time. And I believe that Her Majesty's
portrait is quite beautiful.

The following link gives more information:

http://www.vice.com/en_au/article/9kmzv5/all-australians-are-legally-entitled-to-a-portrait-of-the-queen

52.4 percent said they want a republic, we live in a democracy, rule by the majority not minorities.
ALTRAV look first at your words before condemning mine.
We both may be wrong, but it is my right to hold my opinions.
Will stick around for a while, the site is worth it, however yes some with fixed bigoted opinions seem in control not sure it is worth the effort
Questioning my return and the seeming inability to hold views other than far right ones
NNN not sure if you have a problem please forgive me, but the glimpse of a very bright mind promises much better like very much to see it from you

cont'd ...

Here's more on the portrait of the Queen - and to
show you that this is not a joke:

http://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/posts/the-constituents-request-program-allows-australian-citizens-to-receive-nationhoo/10155687324691728/

Belly,

You are being disingenuous,

"52.4 percent said they want a republic, we live in a democracy, rule by the majority not minorities".

That is but a majority in a sample, we don't know the size of the sample so the figure of 52.4% has no validity whatsoever.

"It is my view we Aussies can still hold any view we wish, that my view here is not anti British, just anti a family that should be on TV just for the sexual athletics of its every member,, not asking me to bend my knee.
We will become a Republic only when is unknown
IF you are not aware goggle Diana's boyfriends, look for the question who is Harry's dad? see the photos
Then tell me a TV show based on the Royals olympic skills in bed hoping would not be a huge thing
Name? *game of Royal groans*,"

The above, complete with contrived mistakes, was from Belly, the Monarch of Insults.

It takes a special kind of person to heap insults on a dead woman.

NNN not sure if you have a problem please forgive me,
Belly.
On page 3 you say "not surprised we won't talk about it" when obviously we are. You demand obedience and say you are not for dictatorship. My post was supporting your side and you say it's a problem. Do you know how to shoot yourself in the foot? Do you understand what that expression is used for? Can you spell "expression"?

Belly, sorry, I have to go with Isi on this one.
Ahh, thought youd got that one through eh?
Remember, we are watching, so if you try to pull a fast one there are enough people out there to catch you out.
Anyway Isi's right because 52.4% of what?
It could be 52.4% of 100 people at a shopping centre, or at a republican rally.
It certainly wasn't 52.4% of the eligible Aussies, or I would have remembered, because they would have had to ask me as well as the rest of Australia.
Anyway Belly, good try, catch you at the next innings.

"Anyway Belly, good try, catch you at the next innings"

and that's OUT!!

"what makes it correct?"
Because it is so.
The doctrine has been so for centuries so by it's very existence and practice over the centuries has entrenched the proto-col into being in the current form, as it is.
Unchanged. "

We saw Belly's own goal and now ALTRAV also. George III was entrenched against All American and went off injured. He signed with Van Dieman in VFL as substitute . His grandpa was bought in a shady back-room deal by Pom Parliament of Lords
after the Stuarts had a disastrous season against them. They had a hopeless comeback under Bonnie Charlie at right-back north Scotland but the loss of the head man Charles I was a fatal blow. Charles George is up and coming but is locked-in to Parliamentary selectors tightening the rule book ruthlessly in the 350 year season.

//Toni, OK let me enlighten you.
"what makes it correct?"
Because it is so.//

That doesn't explain anything.

//The doctrine has been so for centuries so by it's very existence and practice over the centuries has entrenched the proto-col into being in the current form, as it is.//

So have elective monarchies. As I've explained, tradition alone is not sufficient reason for doing aught.

//Toni, if you can muster up enough followers to overthrow the Aust govt//

Who said anything about overthrowing the Government? That's just another of your violent, seditious fantasies.

//So I'm going with the fact that MOST Aussies who's ancestors date back to the period of colonisation, which by todays numbers, will be a majority and will have convict ancestors//

Source?

Because according to the Ancestry website, about 20% of Australian's have convict ancestry, a definite minority. And I reckon they've probably done a bit more research than you, with a sounder methodology than your habit of just making it up as you go along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia
http://www.quora.com/How-many-people-in-Australia-today-are-descended-from-British-criminals
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-07-25/online-records-highlight-australias-convict-past/2512534

//Surely even you know that you have to end a line of successors to the throne before you can look outside the bloodline.//

No, you really don't. Have a look into the Glorious Revolution; the succession went from James II to William III even though James II had a son. According to your 'facts' - and I use the term very loosely - that could never have possibly happened because the succession would have had to flow from James II to James III rather than William III. But it didn't, and the reason it didn't is because the Parliament changed the rules of succession to forbid Catholics from holding the throne.

Let me just repeat that last bit for you, because I get that you're a bit slow on the uptake: the British PARLIAMENT - not some bloodthirsty usurper, but the PARLIAMENT - prevented the succession from flowing to the Prince of Wales, the heir apparent.

... And they didn't do it by killing every last scion of the House of Stuart. They did it by changing the rules of succession to disenfrachise Catholics. It really is that simple; all Australia has to do is change its rules of succession.

//So yes for your plan to work ALL the royals have to die.//

Nope. That's yet another of your violent, seditious fantasies.

//No we don't get "whoever".//

I was using 'whoever' as a place-holder for their name.

//So If you don't want a KING, which you can't justify//

I do want a monarch (Queens are also fine), and I can justify it even if you don't agree with that justification. I just don't want the same monarch as Britain after Her Majesty passes on.

//they can be a Prime Minister//

We've already got one. So does Britain, incidentally. In constitutional monarchies, the Prime Minister is not the Head of State - and nor should they be. Is Mise is quite right that the monarch should not be chosen from the Parliament. That's a very, very bad idea.

//President//

No, Presidents are what you have in Republics. I'm in favour of a constitutional monarchy... you're not really comprehending any of this, are you?

//Dictator//

No. Just no. At your age, I really shouldn't have to explain to you why that's a crap idea.

//Your comments are those of left leaning commoner bias.//

Nope, I've already explained that I consider strange women lying in ponds distributing swords to be a much better system of government than anything proposed by Dennis and his elk, sorry, ilk:

A moose once bit my sister...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

That being said, I still think that the Witengamot sounds like a much better system for choosing monarchs than some farcical aquatic ceremony.

//You or I can't change that//

No, but the Parliament can.

//QEII IS OUR QUEEN!//

I haven't said she isn't... or that she shouldn't be. You're tilting at windmills.

//What the hell makes Australia so special she has to reside here?//

I haven't said she should. Take your bloody pills, mate.

Toni, 'that doesn't explain anything', well not to you anyway.
No point explaining as you are set in your beliefs.
Look if something has been established and practiced for centuries, it becomes the proto-col and no matter what vegetables like you or the reps hate it, tough, that is it.
You must think we're all as thick and determined as you.
You cannot have an 'elected' Monarch.
Do you even know the meaning of the word, Monarch?
So stop pushing the lie.
Toni, you keep leaving yourself open to ridicule and name calling, like moron.
How do you think Kings and queens acquired all those countries in the first place?
They CONQUERED them, that means they did it through, ;violent and seditious acts!
DUH.
Never mind your source, you must have stayed up late to find something that made you feel you got it right.
Go back and find how many convicts ended up here, then start multiplying from 'settlement' till today, leave out the latter day migrants, they obviously do not count.
As for suggesting that you can have an elected "Monarch".
No you really can't!
Let me set YOU straight, the Parliament can't piss without the royal consent.
'Let me just repeat that last bit for you, because I get that you are a bit slow on the uptake'; as I said before, the British parliament, cannot do squat without the Queens permission.
So the follow up to that is, only royal lineage can ascend to or take over the throne, so Toni, the example you gave seems as though they already have royal titles, it stands to reason they made the obvious choice.
Govt's don't create Kings, so I don't know where the heck you get your info from.
Here's a tip.
Stop trying to win points and believing your always right.
I already have.

TRUTH will alway have value, the insulting views expressed about me are water off a ducks back, but insulting opinion polls?
Up early, often the case bit unwell, goggled the subject Australia will it become a Republic.
Found far better polling than the quoted SBS one .
But why bother?
Read the whole thread, absorb it learn from it.
Yes bit of a smarty in retaliation to? you make up your mind.
The case against is poorly put poorly defended by? minds closed to open debate on the subject.
Lizy will never own my country, we will become a Republic, now get ready, LASH OUT tell me my view has no right to be seen here