HRH to retire next year, at 95 ?

[bob10]

Charles in the box seat, thanks to Andrew.

Prince Andrew scandal ongoing as Prince Charles picks up royal reins (https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2019/11/29/prince-charles-prince-andrew-plan/)

[trout1105]

Nothing whatsoever to do with Prince Andrew's ****ups, Prince Charles was always going to be the next Monarch.

[SBD4]

I think Bob's well aware of that. He's referring to:


“The scandal surrounding Andrew and Epstein gave Charles an opportunity to step in to show that he can run The Firm,” a royals source told the newspaper.

“No one is bigger than the institution of the royal family. Charles recognised that and acted decisively. This was the moment when Charles stepped up as Prince Regent, the Shadow King.’”

[bob10]

I think Bob's well aware of that. He's referring to:

Thanks mate , unfortunately old mate often shoots from the hip, without even reading the story. But I understand that, so it's all good. EDIT It would be a tough gig for Charles , if Brexit gets thru which looks likely. But I think he will surprise many , for the better.

[Bearman]

I think Lizzie is holding on as long as she can. Handing over to big ears has her worried I reckon.

[SBD4]

Thanks mate , unfortunately old mate often shoots from the hip, without even reading the story. But I understand that, so it's all good. EDIT It would be a tough gig for Charles , if Brexit gets thru which looks likely. But I think he will surprise many , for the better.
I like him more, the older he gets. I watch this and was impressed:
Prince Charles Inside The Duchy Of Cornwall : ABC iview (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/prince-charles-inside-the-duchy-of-cornwall)

[pop058]

I think Lizzie is holding on as long as she can. Handing over to big ears has her worried I reckon.

I don't think it is big ears that worries her, more the consort.

[Eevo]

soon my comrades. the republic of australia & new zealand will rise.

[Saitch]

"Retire" or "Abdicate"?

Does it have any impact on us? Oh, disregarding the GG role.

[Bigbjorn]

soon my comrades. the republic of australia & new zealand will rise.

No, never to join with the sheep shaggers and their funny accents and pronunciations.[bigsad].

[Eevo]

No, never to join with the sheep shaggers and their funny accents and pronunciations.[bigsad].


they will be annexed and reeducated.

[BradC]

they will be annexed and reeducated.

If they were "educated" they wouldn't have produced John Clarke and Murray Ball. Leave 'em alone I say!

[3toes]

I like him more, the older he gets. I watch this and was impressed:
Prince Charles Inside The Duchy Of Cornwall : ABC iview (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/prince-charles-inside-the-duchy-of-cornwall)

Hé is already doing the job just does not have the hat that goes with it. Mother is still pulling the strings which is good as gives depth of experience

tend to think more of this one though as showing something about the person. Am sure the person who posted it has no idea what was going on here and why it is funny

YouTube (https://youtu.be/FGL4ycieNZU)

[JDNSW]

soon my comrades. the republic of australia & new zealand will rise.

The door has always been open for NZ to join the Commonwealth (have a read of the Constitution) - but they have never seemed to have much desire to do so!

[Pickles2]

Being an "Old Pom", I'm a Monarchist through & through.
I think Charles is "past it", & is not in touch with reality often enough.
I have believed for some time that William should be the next to wear the Crown, Much younger, more "aware" of the "everyday" world & a squillion times more popular than Charles.
Of course, this is just IMHO, & has basically no chance of happening.
Pickles.

[bob10]

Hé is already doing the job just does not have the hat that goes with it. Mother is still pulling the strings which is good as gives depth of experience

tend to think more of this one though as showing something about the person. Am sure the person who posted it has no idea what was going on here and why it is funny

YouTube (https://youtu.be/FGL4ycieNZU)

I doubt there is any one here who does not have a skeleton or two in the closest. This may explain Andrew.


YouTube (https://youtu.be/NRStCaAXvzY)

[bob10]

Being an "Old Pom", I'm a Monarchist through & through.
I think Charles is "past it", & is not in touch with reality often enough.
I have believed for some time that William should be the next to wear the Crown, Much younger, more "aware" of the "everyday" world & a squillion times more popular than Charles.
Of course, this is just IMHO, & has basically no chance of happening.
Pickles.

William has married outside the circle of Royal Cousins, as has Harry, thereby keeping their gene pool clear of the problems related with the inbreeding of European Royals over the centuries. A 21st century solution to hereditary madness would be to start afresh with the gene pool. Therefore perhaps Charles should be appointed Royal Gardener , to talk to the roses, and William should start a new, fresh dynasty. Only that way , I think, could Britain be confident of ensuring a strong and healthy blood line in their Royal Family. Any way, Oliver Cromwell, according to Monty Python.


YouTube (https://youtu.be/dBPf6P332uM)

[Bigbjorn]

William has married outside the circle of Royal Cousins, as has Harry, thereby keeping their gene pool clear of the problems related with the inbreeding of European Royals over the centuries. A 21st century solution to hereditary madness would be to start afresh with the gene pool. Therefore perhaps Charles should be appointed Royal Gardener , to talk to the roses, and William should start a new, fresh dynasty. Only that way , I think, could Britain be confident of ensuring a strong and healthy blood line in their Royal Family. Any way, Oliver Cromwell, according to Monty Python.


YouTube (https://youtu.be/dBPf6P332uM)

Diana's blood line was closer to the old English royal lines and should have improved the breeding of the Monarchy. Betty's family are a bunch of German usurpers according to my SWMBO who can trace descent from Cousin Willy The Conqueror. Mrs. says she has a better claim to the throne by blood descent than the current lot.

[RANDLOVER]

Diana's blood line was closer to the old English royal lines and should have improved the breeding of the Monarchy. Betty's family are a bunch of German usurpers according to my SWMBO who can trace descent from Cousin Willy The Conqueror. Mrs. says she has a better claim to the throne by blood descent than the current lot.

That is some history indeed, as the best I've seen in those "Who Do Yo Think you Are?" programmes was Alexander Armstrong and they traced his family back to 1066.

From Wikipedia....."
In August 2010, Armstrong was featured in an episode of BBC One (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_One)
's Who Do You Think You Are? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Do_You_Think_You_Are%3F_(UK_TV_series))
, through which he discovered that he was a descendant of William the Conqueror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror)
. His father comes from a landowning family with deep connections to the North East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East)
, and is a great-grandnephew of Robert Spence Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spence_Watson)
and distantly related to William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Armstrong,_1st_Baron_Armstrong)
.[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Armstrong#cite_note-58)
With Armstrong's father's family history already well-known to him, the series traced his mother's side of the family, who were descended from Irish landed gentry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry)
."

And re: the OP, certainly a well deserved retirement.

[bob10]

"Retire" or "Abdicate"?

Does it have any impact on us? Oh, disregarding the GG role.


Ask Whitlam that question.

[bob10]

That is some history indeed, as the best I've seen in those "Who Do Yo Think you Are?" programmes was Alexander Armstrong and they traced his family back to 1066.

From Wikipedia....."
In August 2010, Armstrong was featured in an episode of
BBC One (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_One)
's
Who Do You Think You Are? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Do_You_Think_You_Are%3F_(UK_TV_series))
, through which he discovered that he was a descendant of
William the Conqueror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror)
. His father comes from a landowning family with deep connections to the
North East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East)
, and is a great-grandnephew of
Robert Spence Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spence_Watson)
and distantly related to
William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Armstrong,_1st_Baron_Armstrong)
.
[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Armstrong#cite_note-58)
With Armstrong's father's family history already well-known to him, the series traced his mother's side of the family, who were descended from Irish
landed gentry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry)
."

And re: the OP, certainly a well deserved retirement.




That's nothing. I know a couple of fellas who can trace their bloodline back 60,000 years.


https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/jandamarra-bunuba-warrior

[DiscoMick]

I can trace my English bloodline back to 1243 in Devon, so that makes me better qualified to be King than those usurpers descended from the Germans, I reckon.
My first act as King would be to introduce a Bill to cancel the monarchy and introduce a republic.
[emoji1]

[Eevo]

If they were "educated" they wouldn't have produced John Clarke and Murray Ball. Leave 'em alone I say!
i really cant argue with that can i

[Eevo]

but they have never seemed to have much desire to do so!

hence the annex option. [bigsmile1]

[JDNSW]

Do we want them?

[Eevo]

Do we want them?


australia needs living space for her people
living space in the east.

[Bigbjorn]

australia needs living space for her people
living space in the east.

Lebensraum, Ostfront. I think I have heard that sometime earlier. [bigwhistle]

[bob10]

I can trace my English bloodline back to 1243 in Devon, so that makes me better qualified to be King than those usurpers descended from the Germans, I reckon.
My first act as King would be to introduce a Bill to cancel the monarchy and introduce a republic.
[emoji1]

Probably not that simple.
The UK political system


The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy: government is voted into power by the people, to act in the interests of the people. Every adult has the right to vote - known as 'universal suffrage'.

Alongside this system, the UK is also a constitutional monarchy. This is a situation where there is an established monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II), who remains politically impartial and with limited powers.

Parliament and Crown - UK Parliament (https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/)

[bob10]

The evolution of the British Parliament.

The evolution of Parliament - UK Parliament (https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/)

[JDNSW]

One of the fascinating things I have found about the history of the British constitution is that the US constitution looks a lot like the British one did in the second half of the eighteenth century, with a hereditary head of government/state replaced by an indirectly elected head of government/state with a fixed term, suitably modified to fit a federation, most notably with the House of Lords replaced by a Senate elected by the states making up the federation.

The Australian constitution looks a lot like the British constitution did in 1900, with the head of state and head of government by then being separate individuals (Queen & PM), with the head of government and all ministers now required to be members of parliament, and again, modified to suit a federation, directly copying the US model with a state elected Senate. Not having a written constitution, the British constitution can and does change quite rapidly, without upheaval, compared to countries with written constitutions that have usually been designed to be difficult to change.

[4bee]

My lot go back to Jesus Christ, you know, the Scots one or is it MacAdam & Eve??

[DiscoMick]

Do you want a theocracy in which priests rule in the name of God? Doesn't seem to be working well in Iran.
Still, it would be better than having kings who think they are God in charge.
Personally, I want a weak and accountable government subject to regular boots up the bum by the people. So I favour a weak President, replacing a Governor-General, appointed by parliament, with few powers except the ability to hold the ship on course when the politicians are predictably useless, which is often.
When in doubt, let's put it to the people and have an election. Elections should be fixed term to reduce the ability of the politicians to manipulate the system for selfish reasons.
I do not favour the American system in which a rich populist can lie his way into office with the support of a minority of support from the population. America is becoming undemocratic.
I also favour a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption, appointed by parliament, properly funded, with lots of power to scare the politicians. Ministers under investigation by the police should always stand aside until there is a result.
And let's bring back the stocks, in which people convicted of particularly repulsive acts are pelted with rotten tomatoes on street corners. Would be great. Be like the old tribal days when the worst offenders were booted out of the village and the gates locked to keep them out.
I have a list of names... [emoji41]

[JDNSW]

Do you want a theocracy in which priests rule in the name of God? Doesn't seem to be working well in Iran.
Theocracies have never been very nice places to live. Probably describes China under Mao or the Soviet Union or Cambodia under the Kmer Rouge as well. Theocracies don't need a god, just a belief system that everyone has to adhere to.
Still, it would be better than having kings who think they are God in charge.
Not really. Monarchies have the advantage, at least in theory, that an heir can be trained from childhood for the job. Of course, it doesn't always happen like that.
Personally, I want a weak and accountable government subject to regular boots up the bum by the people. So I favour a weak President, replacing a Governor-General, appointed by parliament, with few powers except the ability to hold the ship on course when the politicians are predictably useless, which is often.
Needs to have some sort of a system to try to avoid the office becoming a political one. Perhaps jointly appointed by both states and federal parliaments?
When in doubt, let's put it to the people and have an election. Elections should be fixed term to reduce the ability of the politicians to manipulate the system for selfish reasons.
I think these two sentences are in contradiction! How exactly do you have an election every time there is doubt and also have fixed terms?
I do not favour the American system in which a rich populist can lie his way into office with the support of a minority of support from the population. America is becoming undemocratic.
Which bit of their system don't you like? In my view, the two biggest improvements Australia has over the US system is compulsory voting and preferential voting. Multimember electorates would be better.
I also favour a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption, appointed by parliament, properly funded, with lots of power to scare the politicians. Ministers under investigation by the police should always stand aside until there is a result.
Good idea.
And let's bring back the stocks, in which people convicted of particularly repulsive acts are pelted with rotten tomatoes on street corners. Would be great. Be like the old tribal days when the worst offenders were booted out of the village and the gates locked to keep them out.
I have a list of names... [emoji41]

I've got a little list, none of 'em 'll be missed....

[bob10]

Do you want a theocracy in which priests rule in the name of God? Doesn't seem to be working well in Iran.
Still, it would be better than having kings who think they are God in charge.
[emoji41]

Actually, IRAN is an Islamic democracy, by definition.


https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/different-types-democracy-direct-representative-presidential-parliamentary.html

[bob10]

Australia, UK and the USA are described as Social democracies,

YouTube (https://youtu.be/Jv3hMfTTCfY)

[bob10]

Social democracy VS Free market capitalism.

YouTube (https://youtu.be/YKuRiigagkU)

[Bigbjorn]

Do you want a theocracy in which priests rule in the name of God? Doesn't seem to be working well in Iran.
. [emoji41]

This didn't work well in Eire either with the Roman Catholic church in charge through their surrogates, the Irish Dail.