The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor General, etc... - Page 7

Australian · #**121** 04-13-2008, 06:33 AM

Here is a pic of GG Quentin Bryce. She looks every bit a queen, just look at that huge diamond ring on her finger lol

http://www.law.uq.edu.au/events/70th...versary020.jpg

Another pic...looking even more queenly
http://www.childsafety.qld.gov.au/ma...s/infocus3.jpg

Madame Royale · #**122** 04-13-2008, 06:48 AM

Oh, she isn't GG just yet..hehe

I don't think it's a diamond ring, Australian. More like one CP Mary would wear...

Australian · #**123** 04-13-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Oh, she isn't GG just yet..hehe

I don't think it's a diamond ring, Australian. More like one CP Mary would wear...

Oh yeah your right Madame Royale, i just zoomed it and its not. I must need glasses.

kbear · #**124** 04-14-2008, 04:51 PM

She is a good choice for GG for Qus IMO good luck to her

Madame Royale · #**125** 04-19-2008, 10:18 AM

theage.com.au

Australia will be a republic within two years if delegates to the 2020 summit in Canberra have their way.

Republic by 2010, summit told - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

My say:
Ambitious indeed, and the summit istelf has been received with mixed responses. One big thinking tank, though to some a piece of political comedy.

As for the Republic, it's been suggested that within a two year time frame ties with the Crown are dissolved, whilst retaining the GG for a further 5 years while the question on what type of governing body is wanted to establish an entirely new form of government, is put to the Australian people.

So what is that, a span of seven years in limbo with the Governor General acting as an interim Head of State?

Unquestionably, this is an issue of ENORMOUS importance and requires every bit the dedication and attention of all Australian's and parliamentary officials. To be honest, I'd find any transition during the reign of ERII to be really quite unforunate, but that's just my humble opinion.

kbear · #**126** 04-20-2008, 07:57 PM

Have your say!!! Have it my God I will have to live permanantly in Australia again (there goes my skin) to do my utmost to delay /prevent this. WHY ? WHY? We have such an efficient system compared to the rest of the world why change a streamlined efficient model for a leaky oil eating monster?? Can i interest anyone at all in the idea of our own moanrchy???????????????
HARRY FOR KING!! HARRY FOR KING!!!

OK it looks like for techinical reasons I am silent for a while at least in this forum. One quick battle in local politics to fight while my computer is out of action and I will be back so lay on the posts so I have something worthwhile to read when I come back. The greatest opponent of democracy is apathy.

Kezza · #**127** 04-21-2008, 07:26 AM

I know a lot of people that are quite happy for Australia to be still apart of the commonwealth.

I don't think we will become a republic while the Queen is still on the throne, but after that I don't know with Prince Charles.

Madame Royale · #**128** 04-21-2008, 07:40 AM

Well, I'd like to retain the Queen as our Head of State but if HM lives a further 15, 20 years then I dare say the likeliness that Australia had become a republic in that time, is really very likely indeed.

Quote:

HARRY FOR KING!!

You really are a republican's dream!!!

Polly · #**129** 04-24-2008, 04:19 AM

Despondently, I'm convinced that Australia will become a republic, sooner rather than later. Hitherto, I thought that we were secure, at least until HM's demise; now, I'm not too sure.

Of course, added to the, not altogether unreasonable wish, for many Australians to assert their sense of nationalism, there is the unpalatable undercurrent of resentment towards Charles and Camilla: well, Camilla, really. I think this attitude so wrong-headed and so devoid of rational explanation that I can barely bear to address it!

What 2020 confirmed was that there should first be a vote asking if Australia should become a republic - yes/no. This will carry, I'm sure. The follow-up question should only then address the form and manner of electing the President to avoid the confusion of the last vote. I am not confident that the Crown will win in these circumstances.

Whatever the outcome, there is absolutely no suggestion that Australia should or would leave the Commonwealth of Nations. That would be entirely unacceptable, in my opinion. If worst comes to worst, we should always be able to celebrate and remember that British law and governance allowed us our relatively easy life of comparative privilege, lack of want and need for most, and a parliamentary and judicial system which is second to none.

tinkerbell1948 · #**130** 04-24-2008, 04:54 AM

Well I hope it never happens in my lifetime (look at my user name the numbers will give you a hint as to how old I am

) and quite frankly there are much more important things on the agenda for the Prime Minister as far as I'm concerned than having Australia made a Republic

No wonder we rejected it last time who would want the "Old Boys" to elect a President from amongst their own

As for Camilla it was a breath of fresh air to find these forums and find there were people such as myself who really liked Camilla instead of her being "that woman" (with all the undercurrents that implies)as she is still referred to in Letters to the Editor.And of course No Idea and W..... Day continue to feed the Diana legend

Polly · #**131** 04-24-2008, 05:04 AM

I agree with you, Tinkerbell 1948.

Sadly, I think that we're on the losing team, this time. Nor is it a party-poltical issue, so far as I can tell. MPs, from all parties, seem to be confirmed in this project. That being so, I fear that the battle may well be lost already.

You're right, too, to defend HRH Camilla. She's done a great deal of good for the Throne and the heir, in my opinion.

tinkerbell1948 · #**132** 04-24-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly

I agree with you, Tinkerbell 1948.

Sadly, I think that we're on the losing team, this time. Nor is it a party-poltical issue, so far as I can tell. MPs, from all parties, seem to be confirmed in this project. That being so, I fear that the battle may well be lost already.

Yes I guess you are right , John Howard was PM when we had the last one and had been for over 3 years

I've basically grown up with the RF, I am 11 months older than Charles so as a young child I was very impressed by the Movietone news as the picture theatre when the Queen was crowned. I was 6 I think when she toured the Empire (as it was back then ). Our tiny one teacher school made the trip to Lismore our nearest town (FNC of NSW ) for her visit. It just bucketed down with rain (prelude to one of our great floods) and Mum said we had to be in there at 6.00am.All the girls wore white dresses and we all had a flag to wave. It poured with rain so much that the car went past, the windows up and all steamed up and as a little girl I couldn't understand why I hadn't seen the Queen

I was sooo disappointed I remember being so envious of Anne and Charles having the Queen for their mother

Then I remember the pledge we said every day, and Empire Day and the fireworks at night

I'm a hopeless case I'm afraid

tinkerbell1948 · #**133** 04-24-2008, 05:42 AM

And having said all that I think Quentin Bryce is an EXCELLENT choice for a G-G

Polly · #**134** 04-24-2008, 05:47 AM

No, you're not a 'hopeless case' at all.

The Crown, as exemplified by this particular and beloved Majesty, has been a boon and delight and a great asset to the Commonwealth of Australia. Many of us would wish to cling to Her Majesty....increasingly, it seems that it's not to be.

Still, always remember -

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

tinkerbell1948 · #**135** 04-24-2008, 06:06 AM

So hard to believe she was 26 when she took the throne that is only 4 years older than my daughter (who is in England right now

) I told her before she left when my Mum was her age I was already 1 year old she can't even begin to imagine it

But you are right. Her Majesty will be remembered as the greatest Monarch IMHO. She certainly eclipses Queen Victoria who retired into her widow's weeds as the Widow of Windsor when Prince Albert died. The one blip as some-one said in another thread was when Diana died but she had grown up with her father as the King when Edward 8th abdicated and all that entailed and it would have been instilled in her what "duty" meant from a very young age and with the fact the Queen Mum never forgave David and Wallis really, for almost destroying the throne and blaming them for King George's early death.

Although I know the movie The Queen was basically fictional as far as the way they laid out the story, I think the essence of what happened in that week was there and I didn't see her as "backing down" as it were but acknowledging that maybe how she handled it hadn't been correct and rectifying the situation.

Polly · #**136** 04-27-2008, 02:08 AM

There can be no comparison, whatsoever, between Queen Victoria and our present monarch.

Queen Victoria did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve her prestigious place in the pantheon, whereas QEII had done absolutely everything!

Queen Victoria's reputation resides in the immensely talented and gifted men who steered her governments (Disraeli; Gladstone, etc) and her brilliant husband, the Prince Consort, Albert. Victoria, to me, has always seemed a little, fat, ignorant dunderhead, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag. The worst thing that happened to the then British Empire was the death of Victoria's accomplished and clever German prince. He gave more to British society than the Christmas tree and was an immense loss to the Commonwealth of Nations, which duly mourned the loss of his superior intellect and attainments.

Elizabeth II, has, alternatively, worked and worried herself almost to exhaustion ,to uphold the traditions of monarchy and to try to be accessible and relevant in all of her realms. No one, anywhere, even the monarchy's most virulent critics, could deny Her Majesty's sense of commitment and hnoour to duty and her unflagging efforts to maintain the throne's prestige.

I think that hard-line feminist do not have to narrow their gaze too far to see one of the world's most exemplary professional women, who's managed to successful combine her job with being a wife and mother. And to those who might say that she's privileged and can afford it, I disagree. Queen Elizabeth could easily have reneged on her duty as Monarch (as did Victoria) or her obligations as a mother. Despite the tabloids' ill-formed opinion, she did neither.

And here she is, over 80 years of age, a-going on, and on, and on...from her ingrained and admirable sense of duty.

It's not that Australians don't care about this; indeed, nearly everyone admires her tenacity and inherent goodness; it's just that she's not Australian and neither is her son and his wife. This is how I understand the issue, at its most simplistic level, added to which, of course, is the unfathomable resentment, almost everywhere, towards Camilla.

As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.

My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.

Madame Royale · #**137** 04-27-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla

I find that very hard to believe.

Blame it on a woman who in no way or enterprise, has ever associated with this continent, let alone it's politics? That makes no sense. Suggesting an anti Camilla "campaign" is what influenced, by account, any federal transition would be not only rediculous, but totally unsubstantiated.

Camilla will never be of relevance within this governing constitution, and any endorsement of a Republic is quite simply, as you yourself expressed, a reflection of the fact our Head of State is not Australian and neither is her son. Camilla comes not into the equation.

Only in one's local doctor surgery is one likely to observe any discussion regarding the Duchess, and it's normally women of a maturing age, dissecting a two year old Women's Day article who are likey to be heard exchanging their character assassinations. Otherwise, she rarely get's a mention, let alone any real thought. Resentment? More to the point of a general uninterest.

Charlotte1 · #**138** 04-27-2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly

As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.

My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.

Why try and perpetuate the stereotype that Australians are tabloid reading simpletons. Since the reintroduction of the republican push at the 2020 summit, the focus of Australia becoming a republic has solely been on Australia having a Head of State who actually resides in Australia. The media reports have not at all mentioned Camilla! Not once, nor Charles. The campaign for an Australian HoS treats Australians like they are intelligent individuals who realise that for Australia to become a republic is not a snub to the British royals. As far as history 'blaming' Camilla for Australia becoming a republic, rubbish! Historians will read the news articles of the day which don't focus on personalities, but on the issues of a country of migrants with no strong ties to the UK. Currently Australians don't have any 'favoured' status in the UK, young Australians need work permits to work there, EU members don't. There is no longer a 'favoured' state trade agreement between the Uk and Australia, not since the UK joined the EU.

Why isn't it fair to QEII that Australia becomes a republic in her reign. Why is Australia so important? During QEII's reign South Africa has become a republic despite the 'grand tour' done by George VI and family in 1947 on the advice of the Foreign Office to shore up support for the monarchy. Malta became a republic despite the fact that that as a young married woman Elizabeth lived there, so much for the sentimentality of the Maltese. They wanted their own Head of State. Zambia, Zimbabwe ( they were part of the 1947 tour) Ghana, all became republics in QEII's reign. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in her father's and they were all more important tradewise to the UK.

There are racist undertones her