Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[Lindelle]

I agree ilyala - totally with what you are saying.
But my point is,let them tour and visit on their own paypacket, not mine.
I don't live in one of many palaces and castles, nor do I have the luxury to go to a weekend mansion or cottaage.
Lets not forget that the Queen only started paying tax a few years ago, I've been paying it a lot longer than she has or ever will and I'm still expected to fund her trips here?
No thanks, let her pay for it on her own, not my money.
Wouldn't it be strange if Australians could turn around and say,
'Yes Queen Elizabeth, by all means come and visit us, but would you mind if your travel arrangements were held up as people have to get to work so they can pay for your trip here? Oh and by the way, would you mind PAYING for a little something - you know, just to help us out a little? Ta Lillibet'.

Oh I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just had to bring some light hearteness into this.

[Constantinople]

The herıtage would still remain but teh future would change. at some point tehre would a heritage combined of different elements.

As for the luxury good, if part of it is not genuine then the luxury good becomes debased.  Which is why morganatic marriages are anathema to maintaining monarchies in their pure states.  That is unless the commoner element can compensate for the lack of royal dna.  it is like adding base metal to gold or claiming that one of those fake  Patek Phillipe watches you can buy in Dubai is real.

[Margot]

This is all very fascinating but aren't we veering a rather great detour off topic now?

[Grace]

I agree ilyala - totally with what you are saying.
But my point is,let them tour and visit on their own paypacket, not mine.
I don't live in one of many palaces and castles, nor do I have the luxury to go to a weekend mansion or cottaage.
Lets not forget that the Queen only started paying tax a few years ago, I've been paying it a lot longer than she has or ever will and I'm still expected to fund her trips here?
No thanks, let her pay for it on her own, not my money.
Wouldn't it be strange if Australians could turn around and say,
'Yes Queen Elizabeth, by all means come and visit us, but would you mind if your travel arrangements were held up as people have to get to work so they can pay for your trip here? Oh and by the way, would you mind PAYING for a little something - you know, just to help us out a little? Ta Lillibet'.

Oh I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just had to bring some light hearteness into this.

Well, the Queen and the royal family don’t visit Australia unless they’re invited first and you usually don’t invite guests to your home then tell them they have to pay whilst they are there!

[Lindelle]

Yes and that's where it comes unstuck.
If we were a republic, we wouldn't have to invite her plus, the governments money should be spent on more important things-like our roads.
Still, Id like to see her put her hand in her pocket for her country.
But yes we are way off topic now so we should let Charles take the stand. Afterall, it's his thread.

[Constantinople]

As the topic is what would happen if Charles were to ascend the throne next week, it is a speculative examination of verious causes and effects, therefore none of this is that off topic.  The Queen being the head of state for Australia means that Australians are obligated for something that is foreign and was not voted for.  Given the extremely exemplary role that the Queen has played, there is not a lot of argument about that as she adds a lot of value.  With Prince Chariles there is mixed opinion but general acceptance. With his consort, there is polemically opposed vitipritude, meaning a schism between those that think she adds value and those who totally oppose her being in even an ancillary position to influence or appear with the new head of state.  The feeling against the Duchess of Cornwall is extremely strong and deep and that is a serious problem if you want to maintain a monarchy in countries like Canada and Australia.

[Margot]

My point was, the last page sounded like it was a topic of discussion more akin to say 'Who should pay for state visits?', and bore little relation to 'what would happen 'If the prsent Prince of Wales  were to ascend the throne next week....' That is all, just making an observation! By the way Constantinople I applaud you for your comments re:Africa on the Vatican thread! Ooops OT!

[Constantinople]

Thanks Margot
The question of who bears the costs of trips is one aspect of the republican/monarchist debate, as is the appropriateness of a foreign based head of state.  I don't see how a country that evades the reality of having your  own, domestically based head of state can develop as a country.  It is sort of like lilving at home when  you are 48.

[Grace]

Absolute tosh.  Being a member of the Commonwealth does not create the ability for a country to "develop" at all and nor does it prevent it from doing the same, but it does have its subtle benefits.  Perhaps you can name someone you feel would be appropriate as Australia's first Head of State or explain how Australia would benefit in any way from getting rid of our traditions? We might save a few bucks on royal visits, then I'm sure Rudd and Co. would rapidly find something else to squander them on...

[Lucien]

I agree Grace.Some just love to hear themselves regardless if it makes sense or not.Bullocks.

[Lucien]

Yes and that's where it comes unstuck.
If we were a republic, we wouldn't have to invite her plus, the governments money should be spent on more important things-like our roads.
Still, Id like to see her put her hand in her pocket for her country.
But yes we are way off topic now so we should let Charles take the stand. Afterall, it's his thread.

If you wouldn't spend it on HM,you would spend it on every single silly bugger that would be elected every four years or so.
A total waist of money as you already have a system that works perfectly,don't ment it if it ain't broken.
It all boils down to populist hashbash,nothing else.Ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing else!

And,btw,you all have a way with getting OT fast.If you can't stick to a topic here,or anywhere for that matter,
how is it you'lll want to be taken seriously?Seriously...

Lindelle...get the kettle on,I'm coming over..

[Lindelle]

  Your funny Lucien.

As it stand I've always got the kettle on and you have gone OT.

You coming over or what?

[Constantinople]

Grace
    İt is hardly tosh.  Have you studied much political science?  İ can suggest some good books on constitutional law.  As for Australıians who would make good heads of state, start with the current Governor General.  Others that would do a good job would be Sir Sam HOrdern (if he were alive today), Thomas Keneally, Dame Joan Sutherland, Alexander Downer, İan Frazer, Fiona Wood, General Peter Cosgrove, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Kay Cottee and quıte a few others.

[Constantinople]

the following should give you some idea of the degree of impassioned elan the Duchess of Cornwall can bring to the game.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel?blend=2&ob=1

[CHRISinUSA]

Grace
    İt is hardly tosh.  Have you studied much political science?  İ can suggest some good books on constitutional law.  As for Australıians who would make good heads of state, start with the current Governor General.  Others that would do a good job would be Sir Sam HOrdern (if he were alive today), Thomas Keneally, Dame Joan Sutherland, Alexander Downer, İan Frazer, Fiona Wood, General Peter Cosgrove, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Kay Cottee and quıte a few others.

Constantinople, as you certainly enjoy questioning the education and knowledge of other posters who do not share your views, would you care to enlighten us about your own constitutional law and political science credentials?