Discussion:
The Queen wishes that some Oz people would stop waiting for her to die
Add Reply
hihgdm
2018-10-17 15:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html

“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”

“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”

"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”

“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”

“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”

“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”

Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.

The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.

I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.

As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?
Louis Epstein
2018-10-17 18:53:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.

I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-10-18 01:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the Queen does make political comments in private.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade. I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she becomes aware of your view on this matter.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
-------------
Probably because she knows how silly it is.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
-------------
I'll have you know Comrade that I made up these rumours about discord in the Palace in the interest of good journalism.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program. There won't be a British anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their only means of getting back in to Europe.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the best leader.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Yes, I need to try the Marxist people again for your membership. I will keep you posted. Are you prepared to move to another country if successful this time?
Louis Epstein
2018-10-18 14:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
-------------
Probably because she knows how silly it is.
There's nothing silly about that eternal divine law,
but it's comforting to see you concede that it exists.
Now you have to get to work on obeying it...
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
-------------
I'll have you know Comrade that I made up these rumours about discord
in the Palace in the interest of good journalism.
Good journalism interests you?
If only you would practice it.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
fof Penaranda de Duero?
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-10-19 14:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
---------------
Yes Comrade, I shouldn't be surprised that you would use him as part of your fake campaign to convince the world that you are an AM. Esteemed British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shot him and his silly ideas down in flames. Bentham should be required reading.
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
-------------
Probably because she knows how silly it is.
There's nothing silly about that eternal divine law,
but it's comforting to see you concede that it exists.
Now you have to get to work on obeying it...
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
-------------
I'll have you know Comrade that I made up these rumours about discord
in the Palace in the interest of good journalism.
Good journalism interests you?
If only you would practice it.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
---------------
There are some Scots who are a little "delicate of mind" Comrade, but beyond that I am certain of their parsimoniousness, which is principally why they wish to remain in Europe. I don't, which is why I voted to leave, but the belief is that Scotland's economy will teeter and possibly crash come Brexit. For Scots it is a purely Scottish issue so I don't know how the English figure in to it. Scottish people are not grateful to the English for anything, as far as I know. The link between leaving Europe and wanting independence is proportional and increasing. And the Queen gets the last laugh as she will get another throne.
---------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
fof Penaranda de Duero?
--------------
I refer to the Dude of Huescar. I don't know who the other dude is. Did you make him up?
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.
------------
The only enlightenment I need Comrade is how to get you in with the Marxists. They really don't want you, clearly because you've fooled them into believing you are not one of them.
------------
Louis Epstein
2018-10-19 16:34:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
---------------
Yes Comrade, I shouldn't be surprised that you would use him as part of
your fake campaign to convince the world that you are an AM. Esteemed
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shot him and his silly ideas down in
flames. Bentham should be required reading.
You propose re-education camps to force the enlightened to
parrot your pet misconceptions?
Post by hihgdm
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
-------------
Probably because she knows how silly it is.
There's nothing silly about that eternal divine law,
but it's comforting to see you concede that it exists.
Now you have to get to work on obeying it...
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
-------------
I'll have you know Comrade that I made up these rumours about discord
in the Palace in the interest of good journalism.
Good journalism interests you?
If only you would practice it.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
---------------
There are some Scots who are a little "delicate of mind" Comrade, but
beyond that I am certain of their parsimoniousness, which is principally
why they wish to remain in Europe. I don't, which is why I voted to
leave, but the belief is that Scotland's economy will teeter and
possibly crash come Brexit. For Scots it is a purely Scottish issue so
I don't know how the English figure in to it. Scottish people are not
grateful to the English for anything, as far as I know. The link
between leaving Europe and wanting independence is proportional and
increasing. And the Queen gets the last laugh as she will get another
throne.
Scotland under the yoke of Brussels would fare miserably.
Post by hihgdm
---------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
of Penaranda de Duero?
--------------
I refer to the Dude of Huescar. I don't know who the other dude is. Did you make him up?
No,he is the heir to the Jacobite Dukedom of Berwick under the terms
of its Jacobite patent,as opposed to the Spanish Dukedom of Berwick
under Spanish law.
Post by hihgdm
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.
------------
The only enlightenment I need Comrade is how to get you in with the
Marxists.
But there is nothing enlightened about Marxists,
or about wanting me to be associated with them.
Post by hihgdm
They really don't want you, clearly because you've fooled them into
believing you are not one of them.
Which indeed I have never been,as they are more your kind.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-10-19 17:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
---------------
Yes Comrade, I shouldn't be surprised that you would use him as part of
your fake campaign to convince the world that you are an AM. Esteemed
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shot him and his silly ideas down in
flames. Bentham should be required reading.
You propose re-education camps to force the enlightened to
parrot your pet misconceptions?
--------------
I propose re-education camps to educate the un-enlightened and their pretend leader (you) to bring you all to a state of acceptance.
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a
very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of
Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of
Oz so decide.
I have always regretted that Her Majesty does not remind
errant subjects that eternal divine law requires that
valid governments remain Monarchies forever.
-------------
Probably because she knows how silly it is.
There's nothing silly about that eternal divine law,
but it's comforting to see you concede that it exists.
Now you have to get to work on obeying it...
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations
Passing off more tabloid fabrications as credible?
Yes,that sounds just like you.
-------------
I'll have you know Comrade that I made up these rumours about discord
in the Palace in the interest of good journalism.
Good journalism interests you?
If only you would practice it.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European
abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to "leave",
although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement
Blah blah...this will be the headline in even numbered weeks,
and his determination to avoid succession or a secret deal to
bypass him for William the headline in odd-numbered weeks...
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
---------------
There are some Scots who are a little "delicate of mind" Comrade, but
beyond that I am certain of their parsimoniousness, which is principally
why they wish to remain in Europe. I don't, which is why I voted to
leave, but the belief is that Scotland's economy will teeter and
possibly crash come Brexit. For Scots it is a purely Scottish issue so
I don't know how the English figure in to it. Scottish people are not
grateful to the English for anything, as far as I know. The link
between leaving Europe and wanting independence is proportional and
increasing. And the Queen gets the last laugh as she will get another
throne.
Scotland under the yoke of Brussels would fare miserably.
--------------
I disagree and it hasn't done so having been under the yoke for many years - and I say that as a leave-voter, only on the grounds that the UK has lost sovereignty over it's justice system and has had to suffer the most extraordinary pile of stupid regulations. Economically, life will be tough for us without the EU, although it will eventually recover, but the belief is that being back in the EU asap (via independence) will minimise the tough times.
---------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the
best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
of Penaranda de Duero?
--------------
I refer to the Dude of Huescar. I don't know who the other dude is. Did
you make him up?
No,he is the heir to the Jacobite Dukedom of Berwick under the terms
of its Jacobite patent,as opposed to the Spanish Dukedom of Berwick
under Spanish law.
--------------
OK I get who he is, but this is a somewhat complicated area of which I have little knowledge - I'm sure you'll correct me on one of those rare occasions when you are right. The title Duke of Berwick is a subsidiary title of the Dukes of Alba going back to the first Duke who was the bastard son of King James II, and they have the rank of grandee of Spain. Because of primogenture issues, the so-called "Jacobite" branch of Alba family didn't recognise Cayetana FitzJames Stuart's elevation to the title and thus elevated one of their own and the son of the current "Jacobite" duke is the one you are referring to. Is that it in a nutshell? I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of any so-called Jacobite claim of anything. Somehow I think the Huescar heir has more legitimacy.
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.
------------
The only enlightenment I need Comrade is how to get you in with the
Marxists.
But there is nothing enlightened about Marxists,
or about wanting me to be associated with them.
Post by hihgdm
They really don't want you, clearly because you've fooled them into
believing you are not one of them.
Which indeed I have never been,as they are more your kind.
-----------
Dream on Comrade. Your secret is not safe with me. The closet door of the world of Marxism is rattling, waiting for you to come out.
Louis Epstein
2018-10-19 18:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
---------------
Yes Comrade, I shouldn't be surprised that you would use him as part of
your fake campaign to convince the world that you are an AM. Esteemed
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shot him and his silly ideas down in
flames. Bentham should be required reading.
You propose re-education camps to force the enlightened to
parrot your pet misconceptions?
--------------
I propose re-education camps to educate the un-enlightened and their
pretend leader (you) to bring you all to a state of acceptance.
--------------
Your failure to grasp that it enlightenment is in direct,not
inverse,proportion to the degree of one's acceptance of the
eternal and exclusive legitimacy of absolute monarchy dooms
all your endeavors to failure.
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
---------------
There are some Scots who are a little "delicate of mind" Comrade, but
beyond that I am certain of their parsimoniousness, which is principally
why they wish to remain in Europe. I don't, which is why I voted to
leave, but the belief is that Scotland's economy will teeter and
possibly crash come Brexit. For Scots it is a purely Scottish issue so
I don't know how the English figure in to it. Scottish people are not
grateful to the English for anything, as far as I know. The link
between leaving Europe and wanting independence is proportional and
increasing. And the Queen gets the last laugh as she will get another
throne.
Scotland under the yoke of Brussels would fare miserably.
--------------
I disagree and it hasn't done so having been under the yoke for many
years - and I say that as a leave-voter, only on the grounds that the UK
has lost sovereignty over it's justice system and has had to suffer the
most extraordinary pile of stupid regulations. Economically, life will
be tough for us without the EU, although it will eventually recover, but
the belief is that being back in the EU asap (via independence) will
minimise the tough times.
---------------
Should Scotland cease to be shielded from the ravages of Brussels
by the benign umbrella of the UK,it faces catastrophe.You delude
yourselves if you think scurrying from your guardian to your tormentor
is good for you.
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the
best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
of Penaranda de Duero?
--------------
I refer to the Dude of Huescar. I don't know who the other dude is. Did
you make him up?
No,he is the heir to the Jacobite Dukedom of Berwick under the terms
of its Jacobite patent,as opposed to the Spanish Dukedom of Berwick
under Spanish law.
--------------
OK I get who he is, but this is a somewhat complicated area of which I
have little knowledge -
Having little knowledge is one of those rare things
for which you actually possess aptitude...
Post by hihgdm
I'm sure you'll correct me on one of those rare
occasions when you are right. The title Duke of Berwick is a subsidiary
title of the Dukes of Alba going back to the first Duke who was the
bastard son of King James II, and they have the rank of grandee of
Spain. Because of primogenture issues, the so-called "Jacobite" branch
of Alba family didn't recognise Cayetana FitzJames Stuart's elevation to
the title and thus elevated one of their own and the son of the current
"Jacobite" duke is the one you are referring to. Is that it in a
nutshell? I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of any so-called Jacobite
claim of anything. Somehow I think the Huescar heir has more legitimacy.
The FitzJames scion was created Duke of Berwick with remainder to his
heirs male...marriage into the Dukes of Alba led to the titles descending
together and being recognized by the Kings of Spain as grandees connected
to a Spanish title of the same name but with remainder to heirs general.
When Alba went to an heiress,so did Spanish Berwick,but Jacobite Berwick
could not.
Post by hihgdm
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.
------------
The only enlightenment I need Comrade is how to get you in with the
Marxists.
But there is nothing enlightened about Marxists,
or about wanting me to be associated with them.
Post by hihgdm
They really don't want you, clearly because you've fooled them into
believing you are not one of them.
Which indeed I have never been,as they are more your kind.
-----------
Dream on Comrade. Your secret is not safe with me. The closet door of
the world of Marxism is rattling, waiting for you to come out.
You urgently require a remedial course in regiolatry but Marx
was no king.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-10-20 07:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
More speculation.
The Queen would never make an open statement on something so political,
and anything anonymously sourced is wildly exaggerated for the sake
of headlines.In this case the article is promotional material for a book
by one of the Daily Mail's own columnists.
-------------
Actually Comrade she did make a semi-public political comment just
prior to the last Scottish independence referendum.
You presumably don't know anything about the relevant sourcing so how
can you know it is wildly exaggerated? Apart from that, I'm sure the
Queen does make political comments in private.
Tabloids are in the business of wild exaggeration.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
"Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her
death before reconsidering a republic is untenable"
"the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it
should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch"
"the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have
this lingering 'deathwatch'"
I think "deathwatch" effectiveness is the only way any Commonwealth
republicanism can succeed.If a Dominion amended its constitution to
remove succession to the Throne and say it would become a republic
when the Queen died that would be more popular than any D-day variation.
-------------
And in extremely poor taste Comrade.
Not at all.It's necessary decency to avoid overthrowing a living
Monarch and leaving the timing of change to Almighty God alone.
Post by hihgdm
I side with the Queen on this one. I think she will be shocked when she
becomes aware of your view on this matter.
You only imagine Her Majesty's views.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated.
When guilty of republicanism one is convicted and spared
only by the Royal mercy.
-------------
Now you're just being silly again Comrade. I'll have to think of a
diversion for you. Perhaps another attempt at getting you into the Karl
Marx Appreciation Society? I can't imagine why they keep rejecting you.
No reason to appreciate Marx.
Filmer perhaps?
---------------
Yes Comrade, I shouldn't be surprised that you would use him as part of
your fake campaign to convince the world that you are an AM. Esteemed
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shot him and his silly ideas down in
flames. Bentham should be required reading.
You propose re-education camps to force the enlightened to
parrot your pet misconceptions?
--------------
I propose re-education camps to educate the un-enlightened and their
pretend leader (you) to bring you all to a state of acceptance.
--------------
Your failure to grasp that it enlightenment is in direct,not
inverse,proportion to the degree of one's acceptance of the
eternal and exclusive legitimacy of absolute monarchy dooms
all your endeavors to failure.
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen?s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming
reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of
Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland's secession from the United
Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz's "abdication" of the monarchy,
i.e. NOT,
though the Union has been on life support since the surrender of the
Stone of Scone...which only means we must strive for its revival and
the unification of British law.
-------------
Get over it Comrade and get with the program.
The "program" was defined in 1707.
Remember,the new names for the areas on either side of the Tweed
are "North Britain" and "South Britain".
Post by hihgdm
There won't be a British
anything left soon, not once Brexit causes a majority of people in
Scotland to suddenly find they want independence because it is their
only means of getting back in to Europe.
Are you so certain of the insanity of the Scots that you are sure
they will NEVER realize their desperate need to be rescued from
the hell of "Europe" and become grateful to the English for saving them?
Back in the 1970s they were the leaders in Euroskepticism,their sanity
can revive...
---------------
There are some Scots who are a little "delicate of mind" Comrade, but
beyond that I am certain of their parsimoniousness, which is principally
why they wish to remain in Europe. I don't, which is why I voted to
leave, but the belief is that Scotland's economy will teeter and
possibly crash come Brexit. For Scots it is a purely Scottish issue so
I don't know how the English figure in to it. Scottish people are not
grateful to the English for anything, as far as I know. The link
between leaving Europe and wanting independence is proportional and
increasing. And the Queen gets the last laugh as she will get another
throne.
Scotland under the yoke of Brussels would fare miserably.
--------------
I disagree and it hasn't done so having been under the yoke for many
years - and I say that as a leave-voter, only on the grounds that the UK
has lost sovereignty over it's justice system and has had to suffer the
most extraordinary pile of stupid regulations. Economically, life will
be tough for us without the EU, although it will eventually recover, but
the belief is that being back in the EU asap (via independence) will
minimise the tough times.
---------------
Should Scotland cease to be shielded from the ravages of Brussels
by the benign umbrella of the UK,it faces catastrophe.You delude
yourselves if you think scurrying from your guardian to your tormentor
is good for you.
-----------------
I don't like some of the policies of the EU but how is it in their interest to torment one of it's members, or potential members?
-----------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian
monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in
Scotland) both changes will happen,
Neither EVER should.and both must be fought with or without
resorting to hysteria.
Post by hihgdm
maybe in the Queen?s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz
throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of
Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain
another. In the very unlikely event that she didn?t accept the Scottish
crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas
would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a
translation ? ?in like Flynn?. It goes without saying that whoever
gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant.
If legitimism is the order of the day,there are senior heirs.
-------------
I would like to see a fight, a duel to the death. That way we get the
best leader.
A unified front driving out all the republicans might be more fruitful.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct
descent from King James II, albeit through a ?born on the wrong side of
the blanket? liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could
create a very interesting court.
Surely the Duke of Buccleuch,descended from the elder brother of
James II,would have a stronger claim?
-------------
That remains to be seen. The current Alba heir is a fit young man so
Buccleuch would have a fight on his hands.
I assume you refer to the Duke of Huescar rather than the Duke
of Penaranda de Duero?
--------------
I refer to the Dude of Huescar. I don't know who the other dude is. Did
you make him up?
No,he is the heir to the Jacobite Dukedom of Berwick under the terms
of its Jacobite patent,as opposed to the Spanish Dukedom of Berwick
under Spanish law.
--------------
OK I get who he is, but this is a somewhat complicated area of which I
have little knowledge -
Having little knowledge is one of those rare things
for which you actually possess aptitude...
Post by hihgdm
I'm sure you'll correct me on one of those rare
occasions when you are right. The title Duke of Berwick is a subsidiary
title of the Dukes of Alba going back to the first Duke who was the
bastard son of King James II, and they have the rank of grandee of
Spain. Because of primogenture issues, the so-called "Jacobite" branch
of Alba family didn't recognise Cayetana FitzJames Stuart's elevation to
the title and thus elevated one of their own and the son of the current
"Jacobite" duke is the one you are referring to. Is that it in a
nutshell? I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of any so-called Jacobite
claim of anything. Somehow I think the Huescar heir has more legitimacy.
The FitzJames scion was created Duke of Berwick with remainder to his
heirs male...marriage into the Dukes of Alba led to the titles descending
together and being recognized by the Kings of Spain as grandees connected
to a Spanish title of the same name but with remainder to heirs general.
When Alba went to an heiress,so did Spanish Berwick,but Jacobite Berwick
could not.
-----------
So, I got it right,so to speak. What standing if any does the Jacobite Duke of Berwick have under Spanish law? I also wonder what the Jacobites thought about a woman inheriting the Dukedom of Alba, or was it a matter of who cares what they thought because it was a legitimate inheritance under Spanish law? BTW Berwick-on-Sea is quite a small place so it's difficult to understand how a dukedom could be made of it. Perhaps it is the smallest dukedom in Europe.
--------------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by hihgdm
As an afterthought...am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a
way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at
some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly
implanted that it will not change?
No GG should ever come from the Dominion over which s/he presides...
they should be "parachuted" in owing nothing to any local faction and
leave when the Monarch decides to move them on.
I see you are again thirsting for corrections that you will
reply to with your typical cockeyed ingratitude!
------------
I'm always grateful to you Comrade. Have I not always been your
biggest fan in this forum? Do I not always politely correct you when
you get it wrong, which is basically all the time? Ingratitude indeed!
Your horrifying delusion that I'm the one who gets it wrong
(totally at odds with your claim to be my biggest fan)
manifests itself constantly,and does I fear come across
as ingratitude.The enlightenment I readily offer you needs
to be taken to heart.
------------
The only enlightenment I need Comrade is how to get you in with the
Marxists.
But there is nothing enlightened about Marxists,
or about wanting me to be associated with them.
Post by hihgdm
They really don't want you, clearly because you've fooled them into
believing you are not one of them.
Which indeed I have never been,as they are more your kind.
-----------
Dream on Comrade. Your secret is not safe with me. The closet door of
the world of Marxism is rattling, waiting for you to come out.
You urgently require a remedial course in regiolatry but Marx
was no king.
The Chief
2018-10-25 01:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
-----------
So, I got it right,so to speak. What standing if any does the Jacobite Duke of Berwick have under Spanish law? I also wonder what the Jacobites thought about a woman inheriting the Dukedom of Alba, or was it a matter of who cares what they thought because it was a legitimate inheritance under Spanish law? BTW Berwick-on-Sea is quite a small place so it's difficult to understand how a dukedom could be made of it. Perhaps it is the smallest dukedom in Europe.
Surely Berwick is also a county?

Regards,
The Chief
hihgdm
2018-10-25 13:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Chief
Post by hihgdm
-----------
So, I got it right,so to speak. What standing if any does the Jacobite Duke of Berwick have under Spanish law? I also wonder what the Jacobites thought about a woman inheriting the Dukedom of Alba, or was it a matter of who cares what they thought because it was a legitimate inheritance under Spanish law? BTW Berwick-on-Sea is quite a small place so it's difficult to understand how a dukedom could be made of it. Perhaps it is the smallest dukedom in Europe.
Surely Berwick is also a county?
Regards,
The Chief
The Dukedom of Berwick was named after the English city/county of Berwick-on-Tweed in the late seventeenth century during the reign of James VII/II, specifically for his "below-the-blanket" son James FitzJames. I found it odd that a whole Dukedom was named after such a small place, albeit a county in it's own right at the time (Berwick-on-Tweed is now part of Northumberland). There is also the Scottish county of Berwickshire on the Borders but I don't think James II had this in mind when he created the Dukedom. All very confusing. The practice of creating properous English cities as counties in their own right is not unheard of. Bristol is one, and there must be others..
The Chief
2018-10-25 21:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by The Chief
Post by hihgdm
-----------
So, I got it right,so to speak. What standing if any does the Jacobite Duke of Berwick have under Spanish law? I also wonder what the Jacobites thought about a woman inheriting the Dukedom of Alba, or was it a matter of who cares what they thought because it was a legitimate inheritance under Spanish law? BTW Berwick-on-Sea is quite a small place so it's difficult to understand how a dukedom could be made of it. Perhaps it is the smallest dukedom in Europe.
Surely Berwick is also a county?
Regards,
The Chief
The Dukedom of Berwick was named after the English city/county of Berwick-on-Tweed in the late seventeenth century during the reign of James VII/II, specifically for his "below-the-blanket" son James FitzJames. I found it odd that a whole Dukedom was named after such a small place, albeit a county in it's own right at the time (Berwick-on-Tweed is now part of Northumberland). There is also the Scottish county of Berwickshire on the Borders but I don't think James II had this in mind when he created the Dukedom. All very confusing. The practice of creating properous English cities as counties in their own right is not unheard of. Bristol is one, and there must be others..
This is all a bit shocking!
All true Scotch patriots - and many more beside - know that Berwick-on-Tweed is Scottish, temporarily occupied by the English though it may be. Berwick is the county town of Berwickshire. Berwick football club plays in the Scotch leagues, etc.

Regards,
The Chief
X***@operamail.com
2018-10-26 03:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Homersexual
Graham
2018-10-26 21:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Chief
This is all a bit shocking!
All true Scotch patriots - and many more beside - know that Berwick-on-Tweed is Scottish, temporarily occupied by the English though it may be.
To be precise, it ceased to be Scottish a decade before Columbus crossed the Atlantic.
Berwick is the county town of Berwickshire.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160815192228/http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-dict/scotland/pp124-151 "After Berwick ceased to be the county town, the general business of the county was transacted at Dunse or Lauder, till the year 1596, when Greenlaw was selected by James VI., as the most appropriate for the purpose; and that arrangement was ratified by act of parliament, in 1600." The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 changed tis to Duns. Berwickshire has not had a county council since 1975.
Post by The Chief
Berwick football club plays in the Scotch leagues, etc.
Regards,
The Chief
Donald4564
2018-10-17 19:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Contrary to your outlook from thousands of miles away, and the rubbish that is in the Newspapers; Republicanism in Australia is not on everyone's lips. Nearly all Australians feel that there are far more important things to be getting on with and they bear in mind how much all the nonsense of 1999 cost taxpayers.

The one important point that is still to be worked out by those who espouse Republicanism - is just what form of a Republic Australia would have. Nobody in the Republic camp seems to have any idea and this is what really irks the average Australian. They don't want to end up with a Sir Les Patterson lookalike.

As to the Queen being "Queen of Scotland" - I would have though that she was already? Both the crowns of Scotland and England were unified donkey's years ago.

(I have always considered this "waiting for the Queen's demise" business before setting up an Australian republic as being in rather poor taste and proving that the Monarchy must presently be doing a good job).

Regards
Donald Binks
hihgdm
2018-10-18 01:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Contrary to your outlook from thousands of miles away, and the rubbish that is in the Newspapers; Republicanism in Australia is not on everyone's lips. Nearly all Australians feel that there are far more important things to be getting on with and they bear in mind how much all the nonsense of 1999 cost taxpayers.
-------------
I didn't say it's on everyone's lips. If you are going to disagree with someone, you should at least get your facts right. Unless you've spoken to "Nearly all Australians" about the issue, how can you possibly know what they feel? By all accounts the Palace recognised a long time ago the inevitability of the coming change and were not that fussed about it, just as I had long suspected. Your comment about rubbish in the newspapers intrigues me. Does that mean that everything you, personally, read about this issue in the newspapers that doesn't support your opinion is automatically rubbish? The issue is so one-sided and your view is so correct that there is no room for anything contrary, no matter how well-researched? I've personally never known anyone to be so clever.
-------------
Post by Donald4564
The one important point that is still to be worked out by those who espouse Republicanism - is just what form of a Republic Australia would have. Nobody in the Republic camp seems to have any idea and this is what really irks the average Australian. They don't want to end up with a Sir Les Patterson lookalike.
-------------
Could be worse. You could get a Spanky Drumpf lookalike.
-------------
Post by Donald4564
As to the Queen being "Queen of Scotland" - I would have though that she was already? Both the crowns of Scotland and England were unified donkey's years ago.
-------------
Well, actually no. The Queen is Queen of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not a kingdom, neither is England - they are constituent countries within the United Kingdom. In fact the most common mistake I hear or read about the Queen is that she is Queen of England. The closest you might get is that she is Queen of the English or Queen of the Scots. I do believe I even heard Prince Philip during an interview refer to her as the Queen of England. There again he also referred to Charles' downtrodden late wife as Princess Diana, which was also a no-no, unless the Queen specified that she could be known as such, in the same way as she did for Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester.
-------------
Post by Donald4564
(I have always considered this "waiting for the Queen's demise" business before setting up an Australian republic as being in rather poor taste and proving that the Monarchy must presently be doing a good job).
-------------
I agree with you about the deathwatch thing but not otherwise. It isn't that the Queen isn't doing a good job, it's just that some people think there is an even better way of doing it which has the added benefit of going the extra mile to recognise absolutely Australia's sovereignty. That is missing at the moment and that is why there will there will always be a republican push, to a greater or lesser extent, until it happens. Suggesting or implying that it isn't true just because you don't want it to happen seems akin to sticking your head in the sand, so to speak.
-------------
Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
2018-10-18 02:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
I didn't say it's on everyone's lips. If you are going to disagree with someone, you should at least get your facts right. Unless you've spoken to "Nearly all Australians" about the issue, how can you possibly know what they feel? By all accounts the Palace recognised a long time ago the inevitability of the coming change and were not that fussed about it, just as I had long suspected. Your comment about rubbish in the newspapers intrigues me. Does that mean that everything you, personally, read about this issue in the newspapers that doesn't support your opinion is automatically rubbish? The issue is so one-sided and your view is so correct that there is no room for anything contrary, no matter how well-researched? I've personally never known anyone to be so clever.
1. Not said but inferred.
2. I believe my facts are about as good as anyone else's.
3. Newspapers may poll about 100 people and then come up with an empirical fact. Please! One has to consider that the Murdoch press is for a republic as is the Fairfax press - so they are going to be biased. Besides, we see that newspapers are continually getting things wrong, so it is no longer a reliable medium.
4. My opinions are based on taking reports from a number of sources and weighing up the evidence. I talk to a lot of people and most that I talk to whilst not being ardent monarchists, can see no real benefit in changing for the sake of change.
5. Thank you for recognising that I am clever.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Could be worse. You could get a Spanky Drumpf lookalike.
I think that is precisely what Aussies are afraid of!
Quite frankly talk of a republic is the icing on a the cake in a way, we should be thinking of getting rid of the states as they are an anachronism from the colonial days. We only need two tiers of Government for our relatively small population. I see that as more of a priority than anything else.
Post by hihgdm
-------------
Well, actually no. The Queen is Queen of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not a kingdom, neither is England - they are constituent countries within the United Kingdom. In fact the most common mistake I hear or read about the Queen is that she is Queen of England. The closest you might get is that she is Queen of the English or Queen of the Scots. I do believe I even heard Prince Philip during an interview refer to her as the Queen of England. There again he also referred to Charles' downtrodden late wife as Princess Diana, which was also a no-no, unless the Queen specified that she could be known as such, in the same way as she did for Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester.
So, just change the way the Queen is recognised in her realms. Queen of England in England and Queen of Scotland in Scotland and Queen of the United Kingdom overall. Simple. (Same as the Queen is recognised as Queen of Australia in Australia).
Post by hihgdm
-------------
I agree with you about the deathwatch thing but not otherwise. It isn't that the Queen isn't doing a good job, it's just that some people think there is an even better way of doing it which has the added benefit of going the extra mile to recognise absolutely Australia's sovereignty. That is missing at the moment and that is why there will there will always be a republican push, to a greater or lesser extent, until it happens. Suggesting or implying that it isn't true just because you don't want it to happen seems akin to sticking your head in the sand, so to speak.
-------------
Having the Queen as Head of State does nothing to lessen Australia's sovereignty. More it binds together nations such as the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Far better to be together than move further apart.

A better way of doing it? Really? Nobody seems to have told us how yet?

Granted, there will always be a republican push same as no matter what is in place, someone will want something else.

I am not sticking my head in the sand, just talking plain common sense. (How much have you personally contributed to the Republican cause or do you expect the taxpayers to bear the cost of you whims?)

Regards
Donald Binks
The Chief
2018-10-24 03:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”
“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”
"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”
“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”
“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”
“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.
The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.
I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.
As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?
Why wait for her to actually pop it?

Just **deem** her dead, and get on with it!

Up the republic!

Regards,
The Chief
hihgdm
2018-10-24 10:15:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Chief
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”
“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”
"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”
“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”
“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”
“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.
The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.
I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.
As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?
Why wait for her to actually pop it?
Just **deem** her dead, and get on with it!
Up the republic!
Regards,
The Chief
According to BBC reporting, most polling in Oz still shows that a large majority of people favour it becoming a republic, despite the hysterical reaction to Harry and Meghan. The suggestion is that this reaction is based on their so called "star power" and not on them being "royal" - which is after all just a semantic description of family connections rather than something substantive.

I'm sure that Harry's down-to-earth approach and altruism contributes enormously to his popularity. The positive irony is that he is, in a quite transparent manner, maximising his royal status to push the issues that he believes in but a majority of Oz people don't seem to think that this transmogrifies into "monarchy is better than republic".

As republicans tend to behave in a sensible, measured and logical manner in representing their views, they are happy to wait for the relevant politician (the PM) to officially push the issue. Opposition leader Shorten has said he will, if elected (next May?), hold a plebiscite to determine the way the wind is blowing, and he will no doubt use the Palace's reported views to push his agenda.

Up the republic indeed!!
Windemere
2018-10-24 16:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by The Chief
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”
“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”
"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”
“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”
“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”
“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.
The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.
I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.
As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?
Why wait for her to actually pop it?
Just **deem** her dead, and get on with it!
Up the republic!
Regards,
The Chief
According to BBC reporting, most polling in Oz still shows that a large majority of people favour it becoming a republic, despite the hysterical reaction to Harry and Meghan. The suggestion is that this reaction is based on their so called "star power" and not on them being "royal" - which is after all just a semantic description of family connections rather than something substantive.
I'm sure that Harry's down-to-earth approach and altruism contributes enormously to his popularity. The positive irony is that he is, in a quite transparent manner, maximising his royal status to push the issues that he believes in but a majority of Oz people don't seem to think that this transmogrifies into "monarchy is better than republic".
As republicans tend to behave in a sensible, measured and logical manner in representing their views, they are happy to wait for the relevant politician (the PM) to officially push the issue. Opposition leader Shorten has said he will, if elected (next May?), hold a plebiscite to determine the way the wind is blowing, and he will no doubt use the Palace's reported views to push his agenda.
Up the republic indeed!!
Well, the Spanish Berwick title can descend through the female line, but the Jacobite Berwick title can only descend through the male line, which is how they diverged a while back.

The current Jacobite 11th Duke of Berwick (also 17th Duke of Penaranda) is about 70 years old, with no children. His younger brother, who's the heir, is about 67 years old, with only a daughter. And there are no other males in the Jacobite Berwick line. So I guess that the line will soon expire.
The Chief
2018-10-24 21:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by The Chief
Post by hihgdm
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-position-on-a-republic-untenable-queen-elizabeth-ii-believes-20181017-p50a2x.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284749/The-Queen-urges-Australia-republic-instead-waiting-death.html
“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”
“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”
"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”
“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”
“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”
“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.
The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.
I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.
As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?
Why wait for her to actually pop it?
Just **deem** her dead, and get on with it!
Up the republic!
Regards,
The Chief
According to BBC reporting, most polling in Oz still shows that a large majority of people favour it becoming a republic, despite the hysterical reaction to Harry and Meghan. The suggestion is that this reaction is based on their so called "star power" and not on them being "royal" - which is after all just a semantic description of family connections rather than something substantive.
I'm sure that Harry's down-to-earth approach and altruism contributes enormously to his popularity. The positive irony is that he is, in a quite transparent manner, maximising his royal status to push the issues that he believes in but a majority of Oz people don't seem to think that this transmogrifies into "monarchy is better than republic".
As republicans tend to behave in a sensible, measured and logical manner in representing their views, they are happy to wait for the relevant politician (the PM) to officially push the issue. Opposition leader Shorten has said he will, if elected (next May?), hold a plebiscite to determine the way the wind is blowing, and he will no doubt use the Palace's reported views to push his agenda.
Up the republic indeed!!
You may be interested in the following article...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-irish-presidents-are-the-best-in-the-world-1.3671909

You Antipodeans need to get your act together, and boot Betty!

Regards,
The Chief
Louis Epstein
2018-10-27 04:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Chief
Up the republic!
BLOW up any republic!

Monarchy everywhere forever!!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-10-27 20:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by The Chief
Up the republic!
BLOW up any republic!
Really Comrade? With what? A simple pipe bomb, or a more sophisticated IED? A napalm bomb would to the trick if chemical warfare turns you on. How about a nuke? - that way you can take the whole country out. How many people would you want killed? Everyone? - or would you want some left alive to worship at the feet of the new king or queen in the monarchy that you would create from the rubble?
Loading...