"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.