麻豆约拍

Nick, I'm not sure many Australians on a day by day basis really think or care that much about the monarchy.

I am disappointed at the fact that all but one of the major terrestrial channels is showing it, but I guess it's being offered on the cheap by the Beeb.

I'm glad however that I no longer have to pay directly towards the upkeep of these snooty little scroungers and their hangers-on.

I'd like to crack a few jokes about the ridiculousness of another "dream wedding" from the most dysfunctional celeb family of the last 40 years, but I've got to get on now!

I don't think younger Australians have much time for the monarchy. I doubt the present system would survive another Gough-style crisis. At the moment the only thing the monarchy has going for it is apathy, and a the general fear of change that means referendums rarely pass.

Thanks for bringing up the Chaser issue, I don't think it's had much play in the UK. It's an outrage, both on free speech grounds and also because I was planning to get fairly tipsy watching their coverage. Now I guess I'll entirely ignore the whole thing!

For all the faux-republican posturing that has eminated from a minority of Australians over the past decades, it is rather amusing to witness such blanket Australian media coverage of the Royal Wedding. A fondness of the Monarchy is clearly as strong as ever in Australia, so why shouldn't Australians rightly celebrate (along with a global audience of 2bn+) the marriage of their popular future King?

Regarding the Chaser issue I think the 麻豆约拍 and the Palace are absolutely right to have blocked it.

This is a Wedding, a religious service, which has played out as a people鈥檚 event as much as it has a semi-state event.

In attendance are normal people such as soldiers who have suffered horrific injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, disabled people and charity workers. It鈥檚 not just about foreign royals and dignitaries.

I suspect the Royals can take a laugh as they have done for years, but at least this block saves the innocent guests from being insulted and humiliated in the name of satire.

Watch the Wedding tomorrow, I am sure there will be images where Chaser would either have to sit in silence, or cause a staggering amount of offence if unable to keep quiet.

Personally with my view on Chaser, I think the 麻豆约拍 may have just prevented Chaser and the ABC from looking like complete idiots.

British and Australian humour are essentially the same so why I am seeing the Australian Foreign Minister on TV telling the 麻豆约拍 to chill out is beyond me.

A politician telling an organisation responsible for some of the greatest comedy the world has seen to develop a sense of humour more like his own? Jog on son.

Btw London is full of Aussies (mainly women) with Wills and Kate T-shirts and stuff. I saw it on the local news. Some of them are even camping out (?!?!) to get the best spots. Looks like both countries have their fair share of royalist nutters.

And anyway, there are calls for the abolition of them here too. Who knows, the campaign to become a republic could be taken out of Australian hands.

From what I saw of the Aussie 'Blue Rinse' Brigade in London today, eagerly awaiting tomorrow's parade, the Republicans won't stand a chance for quite a few years yet!

The problem with a republic is that it would mean more polititians and more politics. So most Australians will continue to say "No thanks" for the time being. I know much to the annoyance of a noisy minority.
And the Chaser's? They cause a bit of a thrill for some, but in more worldly countries they would be ignored with a yawn. Little boys whose infantile antics are funded by the taxpayer.

It is difficult to compete with a fairy tale.
Handsome prince falls in love with beautiful commoner...the only thing mising is the glass slipper left at the ball.
However the reality is they are a beautiful couple and you would be indeed churlish not to wish them the best that life can bring, and certainly a better outcome than that of the Prince William's mother.
The reality of the yearning for an Australian Republic has nothing to do with the popularity or otherwise of the British royal family although many do see it that way.
The reality is, "Does Australia have the maturity to elect one of its own to be Head of State"?
Many Australians feel we are incapable of electing a Head of State who would be as effective as the current Queen of Great Britain or her heirs.
This is essentially an extremely conservative stance as we would never know if an Australian Head of State would be as effective as a British Head of State if we did not try it.
This then brings up the argument of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
But is it "broke"?
I believe it is, not in the manner of "the wheels have fallen off" but more in the "traction" of those wheels.
The inability of Australia to elect its own Head of State is the clearest of all messages that Australia is unable or unwilling to believe in its own abilities, its own place in the world, its own concepts of national and global nobility, justice and fair play.
No matter how much anti-Australian Republicans suggest and even mock the kind of Australian who may be elected to the role of President of Australia, I know as a great many Australians know that we would not elect Kyle Minogue or Alan Border to the position, no matter the particular qualifications of individuals like those two Aussies in their own endeavours.
We are not that stupid...we see the lack of qualifications of "Presidential aspirants" such as Donald Trump, for example, as clearly as the vast majority of Americans do.
I like and respect the British royal family.
I am a firm believer in an enhanced role for the Commonwealth within a wider global context especially as a strong and united bloc in the UN.
And I believe that we Australians have the maturity and ability to elect by popular vote a wise, noble, fair, honest man or woman to serve as a role model for all Australians in a ceremonial role much as the Governor general does now.
Do we have the maturity to take such a step?
I believe so, and I take heart in the recent poll Nick refers to...it is that 20% who have no opinion that intrigues me.
With half that 20% and the 41% who support the Republic of Australia, there is the majority.
Good luck William and Kate, may your lives be blessed.

Nick, could you please explain and give some context to the contractual restrictions so that we can better understand this situation (and not jump to conclusions!). Who has imposed the restrictions, why and on what basis? Is this a long standing agreement or one specifically imposed on the wedding? I've heard that the restriction was recently added to rule out the use of footage for satirical purposes. Can anyone corroborate this? I'm a fan of the principle of constitutional monarchy but this seems to be a silly and backward step, if the restriction is in fact imposed by Clarence House, especially given the amount of goodwill there is for the wedding.

8 @Greg Warner wrote:

And I believe that we Australians have the maturity and ability to elect by popular vote a wise, noble, fair, honest man or woman to serve as a role model for all Australians in a ceremonial role much as the Governor general does now.
Do we have the maturity to take such a step?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg i appreciate what you are saying. There are Australian republicans and others:yes, who hold the philosofical idea that one day the country will have developed to full maturity when a republic is founded here and an Australian head of state is proclaimed.

When Australians recognise what they already have as you state ie; a wise,
noble, fair and honest woman as head of state, a system that works, a heritage that ought not to be denied, and accept any alternative will bring no added benefit, probable/possible political,social, negative repercussions, then only will some others view Australia as mature.

The immature notions of "we should have our own head of state", "someone who lives here", "not some foriegner", and the best one of all.."our own elected president",with all the problems that will cause. Really should be buried.

I'd like to see Australia become a republic. It's a little incongruous when you look at some one like Barnaby Joyce having to move addresses so he can run for the Lower House. This is based on the expectation that he can't represent his constituents if he doesn't live in the electorate. The idea that somebody like the Queen is excepted from this rule is grossly inconsistent. Nevertheless, I won't be voting for a republic until there is a viable alternative. The republican movement are wasting their time if they can't come up with a system that works at least as well as the current arrangement.

Eventually Australia will become a republic and when this occurs I expect it will be as boring as the rest of our politics. This is because it will be a natural progression and won't be marked by a civil war or revolution. The more boring the better as far as I'm concerned. If it takes a hundred years, then so be it.

This whole discussion about William being King is a little premature. By the time his grandmother and father have left the throne he is likely to be about 70 years of age. By then people will be saying the same thing about him as they are saying about his father.

I hope the above comment is suitably earnest and completely devoid of any satire of the monarchy. I would hate to fall foul of the 麻豆约拍/Clarence House censorship rules.

Let鈥檚 be clear about one thing: today鈥檚 wedding and all the associated 鈥榞oings-on鈥� are primarily exercises in celebrity worship on a massive scale. Most of those beguiled by the whole affair haven鈥檛 the faintest idea about the pros and cons of a monarchical system versus a republican system and care even less. Those 鈥榤ost鈥� include huge numbers of foreigners from committed republics like the USA. The major US TV networks are falling over themselves to compete on coverage. The big winners in financial terms will be: the print and electronic media for whom celebrity worship is a continuing money machine; the UK tourism and hospitality industry; and memorabilia merchants. The general big winners are those who will be present in person or glued to their televisions and get immense pleasure from witnessing such occasions. As a republican, I can still be pleased they will be enjoying themselves but I also hope that the financial benefits that will accrue to the UK economy will outweigh the costs to the UK taxpayer for staging this extravaganza. I wish this young couple a happy life together but, as a republican, hope that they will be never become the King and Queen of the UK or any other state.

@PeterD

"today鈥檚 wedding and all the associated 鈥榞oings-on鈥� are primarily exercises in celebrity worship"


Exactly. The relevance of this wedding on society, both here in the UK and in Australia IS NOT directly comparable to that of Charles and the first one. Nor is it relevant as a Royal Wedding.

It is purely a sad reflection on today's celebratory obsessed masses. William will probably never be King of Australia as I imagine the republican debate will rekindle once the current monarch passes away.

In 1999 during the last referendum on the matter I was one month short of voting age but I if able, would have voted No as I disagreed with the republican ideal and disliked Keating and his fellow rabid lefties who were pushing the idea forward. These days, having lived in the UK for nearly 9 years, and given that I'm older and one would hope, wiser, I'll be voting a big Yes on the next referendum providing the model of republicanism put forward isn't that of popular vote. God help us if the celebratory obsessed masses wield the vote on who becomes president.

I've nothing against the Monarchy. Any argument against them is either silly and naive or based on some form of hatred against those that are better off then the complainant. I do however believe that for Australia at least, the Monarchy is no longer relevant in today's world or to our place in it. I value it's historical relevance and it's place for the UK but for Australia, somehow looking at the UK as the mother country and hanging on to historical ties and relationships that are no longer relevant, it's time to move on and forge our own future.

I wish this had the same rules as the elections - 24 hr prior no media attention. We are over it, I am happy for them but so much attention, so much too much. Who gives a hoot in todays world. Kate isnt Pricess Di, Harry will marry the next peoples princess, its not Kate. Good luck to them, honest, but its over stated, over broadcasted. Each and every channel plus the add ons, biographies of most of the royals, let them marry and live as an every day couple. Patriotism isnt dead, it is exciting but too much attention. Each person has an opinion on Kate nice, not nice, fake, not fake, leave them alone and I for one couldnt give a hoot. Julie where did that hat come from?

How wonderful was that? It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the happy couple and the crowd and people of Britain in such good spirits. More please!

As a youngen, I've always had a view that we should be a republic. But now, I don't know... Maybe this monarchy lark isn't all that bad as I once thought?
It's not like they rule us with an iron fist or anything; they kinda just chill and have cool weddings every now and then. I like that.

Evan: "Any argument against them is either silly and naive or based on some form of hatred against those that are better off then the complainant"

Please can you explain why someone with issues with bowing and curtseying in front of a person simply because of their bloodline is silly and naive or twisted with resentment over their cash?

Why is the position that someone should not be granted unimaginable privilege simply because of the womb they passed through such a pitiful argument?

1 @Berkinoz wrote:

I'd like to crack a few jokes about the ridiculousness of another "dream wedding" from the most dysfunctional celeb family of the last 40 years, but I've got to get on now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Burk! It really was a dream wedding enjoyed by billions of poeple all over the world.
There are of course poeple like yourself with chips on their shoulders and possibly suffering from a desease which Nick mentioned,namely Annus Horribilis. May i describe the symptoms as in your case?

Annus horribilis is a kind of foriegn body which enters the human body through the annus. It travels all the way to the head and settles behind the eyes.

There is an immediate and semi-permanent condition,the sympton of which is: A sh**ty outlook on life.

16. At 16:56pm 29th Apr 2011, stirling222 wrote:
Evan: "Any argument against them is either silly and naive or based on some form of hatred against those that are better off then the complainant"

Please can you explain why someone with issues with bowing and curtseying in front of a person simply because of their bloodline is silly and naive or twisted with resentment over their cash?

Why is the position that someone should not be granted unimaginable privilege simply because of the womb they passed through such a pitiful argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If i may answer your question, firstly any person actually bowing or curtsying in front of the Queen i doubt if they would have an issue with it.

Secondly,to answer why priviliges (AND DUTIES) are associated with the crown,would require you to educate yourself in the history of the British monarchy indeed the history of Britain itself.

This is fascinating reading and I hope you don't mind if an American steps in with yet another viewpoint.

First off, you can be a republic and still love the royal family. We do, so if/when you decide to become a republic, you can still enjoy all the weddings, births, etc. of the Windsors. Besides, the Queen is still head of the Commonwealth, so you have that connection, too. More importantly, cultural ties don't vanish just because you elect a president. We fought a war for independence against Britain for heaven's sake and even that didn't manage to break the bonds of our common history. You'll lose nothing there, I promise.

Having said all that however, I confess I almost laughed out loud at Greg Warner's assertion that you will "elect as president a wise, noble, fair, honest man or woman to serve as a role model for all Australians". Sorry, Greg. I don't mean any disrespect, honestly. I believe the Australian people are as capable of electing their leaders as anyone else. But politicians are politicians. You elect the least bad of the lot on offer and pray they don't embarrass you too badly.

That may seem cynical, but just look at our political landscape and you'll understand why many Americans recognize that republics do have their drawbacks and monarchies are not all bad. At least if a monarch turns out to be an idiot, no one asks indignantly why the heck you elected them. And if they're not an idiot, you have someone to look to who is safely beyond all the mud-slinging in the political arena.

I do think that ultimately you would be better off with an Australian as your head of state. Just don't have any unrealistic expectations. Look to France for what a republican future holds. Their experience is a good benchmark. Good luck!

Real republicans couldn't care less about who is, or will be, the monarch, to us, the "Kate and William Effect" is irrelevant.
Australia is a de facto republic, which is probably the reason many Australians can't be bothered taking the final constitutional measures, compulsory voting which forces the apathetic to the polls probably doesn't help the cause either.
The cultural cringe, apparently, is not confined to Oz, as far as I know, Canada and NZ haven't made much progress towards a republic either, it would be interesting to learn why not.

12. At 04:35am 29th Apr 2011, PeterD wrote:
Let鈥檚 be clear about one thing: today鈥檚 wedding and all the associated 鈥榞oings-on鈥� are primarily exercises in celebrity worship on a massive scale. Most of those beguiled by the whole affair haven鈥檛 the faintest idea about the pros and cons of a monarchical system versus a republican system and care even less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter your views are clear but inaccurate. This wedding is primarily and precisely that: a wedding. Most poeple educated in Britain will be aware of the pros and cons of the monarchy and be able to compare the same as applied to a republic.

The exercise in celebrity worship as you state would be more accurately applied to
the effects of media saturation and pre event hype such as we have observed.

The definition of celebrity in Britain would more or less apply to movie actors,famous sports poeple, media stars (ie Nick lo) sorry Nick, etc; and other popular identities. Royal personalities are not really identified as celebrities.

The majority of British poeple will be happy and comfortable in the knowledge that
HRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will eventually succeed as King and Queen
and of course they are the ones mainly that matters.

#19 Theowyn wrote:

"I don't mean any disrespect, honestly. I believe the Australian people are as capable of electing their leaders as anyone else. But politicians are politicians. You elect the least bad of the lot on offer and pray they don't embarrass you too badly".

I feel you are missing something Theowyn...we are not talking about a "leader", we're talking about a ceremonial Head of State, who would act in the same way the Goveror General does now.

The Australian President wouldn't necessarily be a "politician", although he or she could be, or it could be an ex-politician, a university professor, anybody in fact who the majority of the Australian people believed could represent the best of the Australia spirit...those many ideals which include open mindedness, fair play, an embracing wisdom, honesty, integrity and an over-riding sense of what is noble and good within mankind, and of course, a deep love and affection for the uniqueness of the Australian land and all its many-hued people.

The Australian President would be above politics, would not comment on the day to day aspects of running the nation, much like Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II does within the British context.

#10 Emps wrote "...any alternative will bring no added benefit, probable/possible political,social, negative repercussions..."

Thank you for your opinion but I can not follow your logic.
In any discussion on the laws of probability, absolutes most often do not apply.
Why such an absolutely negative POV?
On the other hand, the result could be completely opposite of what you say.
Most probably the result would be somewhere in the middle, with my own feelings being that the results would tend towards the positive...the driver would be of course be an absolute commitment to making the position of President of Australia work in the most positive way for the people of Australia and our collective future.

You also say " The immature notions of "we should have our own head of state", "someone who lives here", "not some foriegner", and the best one of all.."our own elected president",with all the problems that will cause. Really should be buried.

Oh really?

I feel 99% of the world's population would disagree with that.

#12 PeterD:
Wise words Peter. As to the question of other nations adopting the republican model?
I'm not going there myself, my focus is completely Australian.
Did you watch the wedding?
Actually I got a bit teary : )

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

22 Greg Warner

Yes, I did watch it as I鈥檝e watched many other spectacles which are staged with the express purpose of being widely watched. The Brits do these things very well so it was visually and acoustically impressive; however, I was glad I wasn鈥檛 still in uniform and having to practice marching and sword-waving incessantly at all hours. As to all the various interviews with spectators and pundits, some were entertaining and others made me want to reach for a barf bucket. At no time did I ever come close to becoming teary. I left that to my wife.

22 Greg Warner

Yes, I did watch it as I鈥檝e watched many other spectacles which are staged with the express purpose of being widely watched. The Brits do these things very well so it was visually and acoustically impressive; however, I was glad I wasn鈥檛 still in uniform and having to practice marching and sword-waving incessantly at all hours. As to all the various interviews with spectators and pundits, some were entertaining and others made me want to reach for a barf bucket. At no time did I ever come close to becoming teary. I left that to my wife.

Looks like I鈥檓 not having much luck with the Beeb today. My 23 was posted again as 24 due to a 鈥榮ystem鈥� problem which to be fair they admitted in an error message. I guess those funding cuts are beginning to have an impact. My 22 was put on what will probably be a long-term hold by the Red Pencil Brigade. Oh-hum, that鈥檚 life. Sanitized version follows:

17, 18 ,21 Emps

What a toxic mix of pomposity and delusion. Before you start talking down to others and alluding to your superior education, you might try improving the quality of your posts: starting with spelling and syntax. Clearly your own education left much to be desired.

@17 鈥淚t really was a dream wedding enjoyed by billions of poeple all over the world.鈥�
@21 鈥淭his wedding is primarily and precisely that: a wedding.鈥�
So make up your mind. Why would BILLIONS of people all over the world watch a dream wedding if it was just a wedding and not a celebrity wedding?

@21 鈥淢ost poeple educated in Britain will be aware of the pros and cons of the monarchy and be able to compare the same as applied to a republic.鈥� 鈥淩oyal personalities are not really identified as celebrities.鈥�

You鈥檒l be telling us next you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. You also seem to be having a recurring problem with the word 鈥減eople鈥�: three 鈥減oeples鈥� in just two posts so these can鈥檛 just be typo errors.

If you go on like this, you risk making a spectacle of yourself which is less beguiling than the Kate and William extravaganza.

Not my day.The first para. to my 26 should have read:

"Looks like I鈥檓 not having much luck with the Beeb today. My 24 was posted again as 25 due to a 鈥榮ystem鈥� problem which to be fair they admitted in an error message. I guess those funding cuts are beginning to have an impact. My 23 was put on what will probably be a long-term hold by the Red Pencil Brigade. Oh-hum, that鈥檚 life. Sanitized version follows:"

Apologies to all. Obviously time for me to get lost for while!

22 @Greg Warner wrote:

The Australian President would be above politics, would not comment on the day to day aspects of running the nation, much like Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II does within the British context.

#10 Emps wrote "...any alternative will bring no added benefit, probable/possible political,social, negative repercussions..."

Thank you for your opinion but I can not follow your logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then i will try to explain.

The Australian head of state is the Queen. The argument against has no value and seems illogical to "yearn" for an Australian head of state because there is no advantage whatsoever, other than airy fairy ideals that have no tangible,practible,benefits.

It is a logical idea to retain the current head of state,and if not why have a head of state? especially a ceremonial one. There would be a president. A president above politics? So who would above the president? Now that is illogical. We dont want a Queen or King but we can pretend we have a kind of, and he or she will be Australian?

26. At 05:17am 30th Apr 2011, PeterD wrote:

Let鈥檚 be clear about one thing: today鈥檚 wedding and all the associated 鈥榞oings-on鈥� are primarily exercises in celebrity worship on a massive scale.

17 鈥淚t really was a dream wedding enjoyed by billions of poeple all over the world.鈥�
@21 鈥淭his wedding is primarily and precisely that: a wedding.鈥�
So make up your mind. Why would BILLIONS of people all over the world watch a dream wedding if it was just a wedding and not a celebrity wedding?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer: A Royal wedding, or should i elaborate?

26 Peter wrote:
You鈥檒l be telling us next you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. You also seem to be having a recurring problem with the word 鈥減eople鈥�: three 鈥減oeples鈥� in just two posts so these can鈥檛 just be typo errors.

If you go on like this, you risk making a spectacle of yourself which is less beguiling than the Kate and William extravaganza.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do type very quickly, and when i do i tend to come down a level. An example would be: who gives a stuff and get off your high horse.

26 Peter wrote:
What a toxic mix of pomposity and delusion. Before you start talking down to others and alluding to your superior education, you might try improving the quality of your posts: starting with spelling and syntax. Clearly your own education left much to be desired.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: Sir, i have tried to improve my spelling and syntax. Willpower alone has caused me to refrain from talking down to you.

Alluding to my superior education i will confirm, I have had a very good education.

24 Peterd wrote:
glad I wasn鈥檛 still in uniform and having to practice marching and sword-waving incessantly at all hours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also had a military career and on occasion worn dress uniform. Not attaining commisioned officer therefore not displaying a sword the statement you made about happy your not having to wave a sword about anymore. In my experience i have yet to meet an officer who would complain likewise.

#28 Emps wrote:

"...there is no advantage whatsoever, other than airy fairy ideals that have no tangible,practible,benefits".

"Tangible, practible, benefits"?
There would be a multitude of such benefits beginning with a more enlightened education for Australian children where a truly global view of history and current affairs would lead to a more globally oriented people with a greater opportunity of competing in an increasingly globalised world which would in turn lead to greater economic benefits for Australia and its people.

Greater prosperity for the people of Australia is at the starting point for all calls for the Republic of Australia.

You also write "So who would above the president?"...the answer is simple...the Australian people.

Are you an Aussie Emps?

29 Emps

鈥�26. At 05:17am 30th Apr 2011, PeterD wrote:
Let鈥檚 be clear about one thing: today鈥檚 wedding and all the associated 鈥榞oings-on鈥� are primarily exercises in celebrity worship on a massive scale.鈥�
I actually posted that @ 04:35am 29th Apr 2011. My 12.

鈥淪ir, i have tried to improve my spelling and syntax.鈥�
Well that effort did not last long did it:
鈥淚 have also had a military career and on occasion worn dress uniform. Not attaining commisioned officer therefore not displaying a sword the statement you made about happy your not having to wave a sword about anymore. In my experience i have yet to meet an officer who would complain likewise.鈥�

May I suggest something along the following lines:
鈥淚鈥檝e also had a military career and occasionally wore a dress uniform. I was never a commissioned officer and, therefore, never carried a sword. Regarding your statement that you are glad you no longer have to wave a sword around, I鈥檝e yet to hear such sentiments from any other officer of my acquaintance.鈥�
Now, isn鈥檛 that much more coherent?

鈥淎lluding to my superior education i will confirm, I have had a very good education.鈥�
So what鈥檚 the reason for the subsequent alarming deterioration in your written English? Hint: try moving the comma forward from behind 鈥渃onfirm鈥� to behind 鈥渆ducation鈥�.

Please understand that 鈥渋naccuracy鈥�, 鈥減oor syntax鈥� and 鈥渨eak spelling鈥� all serve to undermine your credibility before we even try to comprehend the substance of your posts.

31 @Peterd wrote:
Please understand that 鈥渋naccuracy鈥�, 鈥減oor syntax鈥� and 鈥渨eak spelling鈥� all serve to undermine your credibility before we even try to comprehend the substance of your posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am quite confident that my posts on this and other blogs have been largely understood. Generally responses, or responses generaly whichever you deem may be correct (maybe the may) should not be applied have been positive, usually the tone of each have been friendly.

I suspect your criticism is just a synical retalitory to a criticism i made of yourself and a tete a tete you where having with Greg Warner where there was disrepectful
and offensive name calling of members of the royal family, and the result of which you where named by Nick.

At my age i don't wish to return to school for grammar lessons and therefore if yourself cannot comprehend the substance of any further posts i may choose to make without myself "having to spell it out for you" that is your problem mate.

30 @Greg Warner wrote:

There would be a multitude of such benefits beginning with a more enlightened education for Australian children where a truly global view of history and current affairs would lead to a more globally oriented people with a greater opportunity of competing in an increasingly globalised world which would in turn lead to greater economic benefits for Australia and its people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg hope you can forgive me for saying so, but yours is another example of what i describe as an airy fairy idea.

I fail to understand how an Australian head of state will affect the education of children in schools any differently to the present system. If there is not a sufficiently enlightening education in schools now then that is where the problem lies. What has education got to do with the head of state?

Greg wrote:
You also write "So who would above the president?"...the answer is simple...the Australian people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By voting i suppose.

"possible political,social, negative repercussions..."

Do you really believe that with regard to an apolitical head of state?

Am i an Aussie you ask:

HaHa a probing question. If an aussie would you regard me as unaustralian, or as an Englishman a whinging pom.

I do not share personal details.

Greg can I start arguing with you again, please? At least you get inference and subtlety.

Re #18 Emps, thank you for attempting to address my point but I fear you may not have fully understood what I was getting at.

First of all, how do you know what people will take issue with? Who knows, maybe one day I will be invited to meet the Queen or King, and I imagine I'd be happy to do so, but would that mean I'd be forced to acknowledge my ineradicable inferiority?

I used the example of bowing and curtseying not because I have a bad back and I'm terrified of what'll happen should I bump into the Queen, but because it is an illustration of a supposed inherent superiority of one bloodline over all others, to wit, they are better than us because of their parents. This is a concept I struggle with. Whether or not I am ever likely to meet the Queen has no bearing on my feelings on this matter. People are entitled to feel however they like about the royal family, positive or negative, but be sure their birth to the wrong parents will ensure they'll never meet on an equal footing no matter what they accomplish in their lives.

Do you understand now? I am not saying I dislike the Queen or William or Catherine, or that I find the social gesture of bowing abhorrent, just that i am unsure the obligation to bow to a person regardless of their achievements and accomplishments (or lack thereof) has a place in 2011.

Your second paragraph addresses a question I did not ask. I am perfectly well-acquainted with my country's history including our constitutional monarchy, their privileges and their duties (ceremonial, official and representational).

I asked Evan why he considers any argument against the monarchy to be "either silly and naive or based on some form of hatred against those that are better off then the complainant" when I am neither silly or naive, and certainly have no feelings of hatred towards any of them.

I hope this clears things up for you. :)

I think we need to recognise that although the Australian system is a constitutional monarchy it has a number of features which are entirely different to the UK - e.g. a fully elected upper house based on representing the states, AV, compulsory voting etc. The Australian system is in fact a hybrid that was thrashed out over 10 years of constitional conventions in the lead up to Federation.

And it is that unique model that has served the Australian people pretty well over the last 110 years. In my view the real reason for a lack of enthusiasm for the Republic is the "if it ain't broke" syndrome.

Oh and in terms of cultural influence I personally think the 麻豆约拍 has far greater influence on Australia than the royal family.

Oh struth put the old hash up sessions to rest. We are not a republic, we are not royalists either. We are over Work Choices being brought each time Labor is bored. We are a nation who has never had a civil war, we are free and so far doing very well. For struth sake change the record, these old arguments are growing hair, they are mouldy. Lets talk about the incompetent Swan and our deficit, I hope taxes dont rise, its hard enough, to keep a cent. Oh yeah, I think Princesses Beatice & Eugenie went to the same hat shop as Julia.

#33 Emps:

Appreciate your comments and the spirit of good discussion in which they are expressed however, allow me to list some other "airy fairy" ideas...not many gods but One, Magna Carta, Parliament, One man one vote, Votes for women, Government of the people, for the people, by the people, we CAN beat the Nazis, the United Nations and so on...

Education in Australia?
Think bigger, think global, where do you want to be in 2050 and beyond?

Are you an Aussie? OK, I respect your privacy but from your answer I would guess not...the pride we Aussies have in our country makes the majority of us 'fess up to that question, and I agree Stirling, often excessively.

#34 Stirling:

Yes please, always enjoy your opinions...remember the Newcastle connection?...although on the far side of the world...you I mean : )

#35 Cassandra:

Good to see you are back...please re-read my post #8 for an alternative perspective on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" narrative.
It's traction.
It's like a rocket breaking free of the planet's gravity...1901 to now is the first stage...now we need to ignite the second stage...using that word ignite in all of its most peaceful connotations.

To borrow the Red Bull slogan...the Republic gives you wings.
No Icarus analogies please : )

32 Emps

Looks like the rot鈥檚 really setting in now.

Reminds me of Friedrich Schiller鈥檚 great line: 鈥淎gainst stupidity the very Gods themselves toil in vain鈥�.

OK then, Greg. What kind of person would YOU seek to have elected as your head of state. I appreciate that you have faith in your fellow citizens not to elect Kylie or an equivalent, though I'd suggest Kylie sounds more Cath Middleton than Kath & Kim these days, but who would you like to see instated instead?

You see I would be anxious to avoid the potential 'President Blair' nightmare, so for me politicians are a no go. We may all have our own ideas about the ideal attributes and characteristics a HoS needs to be successful but do they include the desire to fill the position? I would say not. So my worry would be that we would be left with a group of aggressively ambitious rich people to choose from. That doesn't sound especially palatable to me...

36 @Eliza-nsw wrote:

Lets talk about the incompetent Swan and our deficit, I hope taxes dont rise, its hard enough, to keep a cent. Oh yeah, I think Princesses Beatice & Eugenie went to the same hat shop as Julia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good onya mate, I agree this government is sending the country to the dogs in order to ensure and only for political reasons a financial surplus in a couple of years time. They promised it, they have to achieve it,in order to stand a chance of winning the next election.

That is the sole reason for the carbon tax, the mining tax, the flood levy (tax) and cutbacks we all have been pre-warned about in the forthcoming budget.

There is no justification for this tax strategy,since economists have said the country can easily borrow funds to cover the essential national costs. It is normal for governments to do so. Because of the soundness of the Australian economy there is negligable risk attached to borrowing funds.

The misleading picture being portrayed by Gillard and Swan of this country having to accept pain in the budget is a con. There should be no pain, its unnecessary,it is simply an easy way out for them to generate a financial surplus, after their vastly money wasting exercises re school halls, roof insulation, and whatever. That is after also depleting the solid surplus left to them by the previous government.

Swan Rudd Gillard and co, conned us over the GFC. There was never a problem in this country,there was no recession, there was still a resources boom happening.
Terms of trade where fantastic, money was flowing into govt,but it was wasted.

#39 Stirling:

It's a good question, and I can understand your "President Blair" point, however Tony Blair, say twenty or thirty years down the track may have reached a point in his life where older, wiser, and with more humility may be more acceptable to someone like yourself...only time and the citizens would be able to make the judgement on his suitability.

That will be my only comment on a Republic that is not Australian.

However, the same thing applies to Australia.

I rejected, with my vote, Malcolm Fraser at the time he was Prime Minister of Australia yet these days he is IMHO Presidential material...as are former politicians such as Gareth Evans, and these days, the Independent Tony Windsor.

So more than likely potential Presidents would be older, wiser, experienced, with a great deal of gravitas and knowledge gained over many, many years.

I agree about the "aggresisvely ambitious rich people" however, as we are seeing with Donald Trump currently, if their only claim to fame is their wealth, they may not last long in the inevitable discussions and debates that would proceed an election.

On the other hand, the ability to create wealth can be an indication of a clever and reasoned mind, especially where that wealth creation coincides with a noble personna, and a history of charitable works and philanthropy...robber barons need not apply.

However, it is just as likely that a potential President could simply walk out of obscurity and capture the nation's attention with a personality and point of view on life and the nation and the world which would resonate across all levels.

Such a person may have no public profile at all before stepping forward to announce their candidature.

Which becomes intriguing because this kind of person may never have wished to enter the party political machine side of politics, with all its game playing and posturing.

One thing I believe about the Australian people, and for that matter the British people is that we can spot a phoney a mile off.

I believe our inherent questioning nature would allow us to make the correct decision.

And if they let us down after, three, four or five years, whatever the term, we can elect someone else.

The entire point is that WE are involved in making the decision and whether we get it right or get it wrong, the very experience of being able to make the decision makes us grow as human beings because WE are accountable to ourselves for making that decision.

No-one can make good and wise decisions if they are excluded from making decisions...making the right decision on a consistent basis is an art that like all other arts must be learned.

39. stirling222 wrote:

"You see I would be anxious to avoid the potential 'President Blair' nightmare, so for me politicians are a no go. We may all have our own ideas about the ideal attributes and characteristics a HoS needs to be successful but do they include the desire to fill the position? I would say not. So my worry would be that we would be left with a group of aggressively ambitious rich people to choose from. That doesn't sound especially palatable to me..."

This was my point as well. Greg, I admire your idealism, but I fear you are expecting more from a president than he/she can deliver. Your post at #30 illustrates this. There is no way a president is going to deliver a better educational system, let alone greter prosperity. The PM can't deliver these things and she actually has some power. A ceremonial head of state can't come close to achieving anything like this. And forgive me, but I doubt the Queen is hindering Australia's ability to achieve these goals, either.

If you want to establish a republic, you need to be honest about the pros and cons. On the plus side you have greater egalitarianism and an Australian HoS to represent the people. On the minus side you have politics and there is no way to have an election that does not involve this.

Note that by politics, I don't mean party politics, but the general business of selling oneself to the nation. The whole, "Vote for me, because I'm much better than the other guys!" It takes a certain sort of person - and a fair amount of money - to put forth such a campaign. It takes a politician to do it and be successful. That's not a horrible thing necessarily, but you have to know that's what you're getting before you begin.

38. At 15:00pm 30th Apr 2011, PeterD wrote:
32 Emps

Looks like the rot鈥檚 really setting in now.

Reminds me of Friedrich Schiller鈥檚 great line: 鈥淎gainst stupidity the very Gods themselves toil in vain鈥�.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ye gods! a line from "The maid of Orleons". It refers to an action undertaken by a famous historical figure which did not actually occur. A fictional event dreamt up by the plays author to increase the drama, rather than accept the truth.

43 Emps

Yes but such a beautiful line and so appropriate in your case. Also, try 鈥極rleans鈥� instead of 鈥極rleons鈥�.

32 Emps

鈥淎t my age i don't wish to return to school for grammar lessons and therefore if yourself cannot comprehend the substance of any further posts i may choose to make without myself "having to spell it out for you" that is your problem mate.鈥�

Please don鈥檛 give up on yourself so easily; self improvement should be a lifelong endeavour.

Time gentlemen, puleeeze!