Thank you Royal Family for bringing me back to my senses. Your groovy new Duchess, and your rain-sodden Diamond Jubilee had lulled me into a feeling of warmth towards your institution that I realise now was caused by a bad bout of demographic creep.

It all looked so promising… Picture: AFP

You know that feeling you get when you start buying the Women’s Weekly and listening to the ABC because you think they’ve become cooler, when actually you’ve just become older and less cool? I can now put my recent dabble with Royal love down to that.

And today you’ve grabbed me by the shoulders and shaken me out of it with the publication of your new rules of court.

According to the UK Sunday Telegraph:

The new rules of Court make it clear that the former Kate Middleton, when she is not accompanied by Prince William, must curtsy to the “blood princesses”, the Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra, and the daughters of the Duke of York, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

When William is with her, Kate does not need to bend the knee to either of them, but she must curtsy to the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Despite being married to the Queen’s son, the Countess of Wessex will, however, have to curtsy to Kate, even when William is not present.

Modern? No.

Egalitarian? No.

Relevant? No.

What a relief!

Most commented

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • St. Michael says:

      11:11am | 25/06/12

      Bet it really bothers you to have to bow when you enter and leave a court, too, huh, Tory?

    • Palzy says:

      11:18am | 25/06/12

      It’s cool to listen to the “ABC”....you are delusional, my dear!!!

    • The Right to Choice says:

      12:32pm | 25/06/12

      If you heard the rant that came out of her boss and CEO on Australian Agenda at the weekend then you’d know why she included the ABC.

    • amy says:

      11:23am | 25/06/12

      I just don’t get….

      they are like a side show really…somthing to entertain the masses and bring in tourism

    • Scotchfinger says:

      11:30am | 25/06/12

      Does anyone else find the media’s inordinate interest in the state of Kate Middleton’s womb, a bit disturbing? Why don’t they just put a camera up there? I’m sure it has been considered during an editorial brainstorming session.

    • TimTam says:

      11:36am | 25/06/12

      Le Grosse Scotch

    • marley says:

      11:41am | 25/06/12

      While I was back home in Canada, I noticed that one of the mags there (Hello?  OK?) had a front page picture of Kate Middleton with an arrow pointing to precisely that area, and a headline reading something like “Kate’s Baby Bump.”  (For the record, the mag was my sister’s, not mine).

    • Tory Maguire

      Tory Maguire says:

      11:49am | 25/06/12

      Yes. The poor woman. What if she has trouble conceiving?

    • pam says:

      12:00pm | 25/06/12

      disturbing yes, damn odd, but on the other side of the atlantic we have michigan frightened of the word vagina…so, nothing really surprises me much anymore.

    • Economist says:

      12:10pm | 25/06/12

      Marley, you lie, you bought it for the plane ride. wink

    • Anne71 says:

      12:29pm | 25/06/12

      @Toby McGuire - “What if she has trouble conceiving?” Yikes. I hope Wills doesn’t go all Henry VIII on her, if that’s the case wink

    • The Right to Choice says:

      12:46pm | 25/06/12

      @ Anne71; Maybe it was the camera Scotchfinger was talking about… My suggestion is to remove it and try again.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      12:51pm | 25/06/12

      don’t worry Anne71, I’m sure she was thoroughly vetted by the Royal Physician following William’s first courting session. She would not dare to humiliate the Family through being barren. Would. Not. Dare.

    • Anne71 says:

      01:56pm | 25/06/12

      Have to agree, Scotchfinger. I’m pretty sure the royal doctors would have checked the “plumbing” pretty carefully before the engagement was permitted to go ahead. Even in this day and age, the function of the future Princess of Wales is still really nothing more than a designer-clad brood mare.

    • Anne71 says:

      01:56pm | 25/06/12

      Have to agree, Scotchfinger. I’m pretty sure the royal doctors would have checked the “plumbing” pretty carefully before the engagement was permitted to go ahead. Even in this day and age, the function of the future Princess of Wales is still really nothing more than a designer-clad brood mare.

    • Mark G says:

      02:42pm | 25/06/12

      Hey, there is always harry and his future offspring to take the throne. Put a ranger in charge, thats always a good plan. It has certainly worked in Australia wink

    • St. Michael says:

      02:42pm | 25/06/12

      Bear in mind that unlike the British in Henry VIII’s time, England’s unlikely to fall into religious civil war depending on the way the line of succession plays out.

      If Kate doesn’t conceive, any children Harry has (while he’s married, that is) then become heirs to the throne.  On the other hand, if he also doesn’t have any kids, we’re down to Eugenie and Beatrice, God help us all.  That’s the main reason there’s a line of succession down to number 20 or so—because they don’t want a single infertile womb to wipe out the English monarchy.

      Isn’t it also cute that Tory missed the rather forward-thinking step (for the monarchy, anyway) that the English crown will pass to Kate’s eldest daughter of Kate’s first? Was that dose of feminism not enough?

    • Anne71 says:

      08:31am | 26/06/12

      It’s quite all right, St Michael. I didn’t really think William would start pestering the Pope for an annullment and then start his own religion.

    • drama queen says:

      10:04am | 26/06/12

      St Michael “Was that dose of feminism not enough?”

      I’d call it a dose of equally - not feminism -

    • centurion48 says:

      11:33am | 25/06/12

      You might think this is unusual behaviour but it is no different than the rules for saluting in the Australian Defence Force. You get used to it. Life goes on.

    • Slothy says:

      12:01pm | 25/06/12

      I dunno, I see a pretty big difference between being expected to salute my superior offices in a work context (who in theory at least did something to earn their rank) and being expected to bow to my in-laws even in my home life because of their birth/marriage.

      Then again, the first time I met my boyfriend’s mother (before we were dating - the dating announcement was even worse and involved his grandma) was at 8am on a Saturday morning as I was standing in her kitchen surrounded by party detrius and various passed-out friends, so my standards of acceptable in-law behaviour may be a little different. (She introduced herself and made ham and cheese croissants for breakfast and I’ve loved her ever since.)

    • Emma says:

      02:10pm | 25/06/12

      I am just waiting for my boss to ask me to kneel infront of her when I bring the lunch in she asked me to buy for her.

    • Borderer says:

      02:12pm | 25/06/12

      I still like the rule that all ranks must salute the bearer of a VC.

    • Mark G says:

      02:27pm | 25/06/12

      Borderer,

      That is actually a US tradition with medal of honour winners. It’s not actually a VC tradition at all. That is a myth. Some soldiers do it anyway as a mark of respect but it is not actually a requirement like it is with the medal of honour.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:28pm | 25/06/12

      @ Borderer: tradition, not rule.  It’s not in the warrant creating the VC or in the Queen’s Regulations and Orders.  But it’s still a nice tradition that they follow.

    • Mark G says:

      02:35pm | 25/06/12

      It’s actually a revolting Americanisation of our honours and awards system. Next thing you know we will be giving out medals for being shot (aka the US Purple Heart).

    • St. Michael says:

      02:45pm | 25/06/12

      P.S.: when it comes to saluting the monarchy, I tend to think you’re not just acknowledging the current holder of that office; you are acknowledging the entire bloodline that person represents—which, like it or not, did ultimately result in Australia’s existence.

    • Slothy says:

      03:57pm | 25/06/12

      “you are acknowledging the entire bloodline that person represents—which, like it or not, did ultimately result in Australia’s existence.”

      St Michael – I’m confused. The Royal Family were responsible for the Big Bang? Or are the Royal Family are descended from a creationist god?

    • Poppie says:

      06:50pm | 25/06/12

      I do not understand the point, as Beatrice and Eugene’s mother Sarah Ferguson was also a commoner.
      Explain that POINT
      Poppie Shurrock

    • Borderer says:

      08:35am | 26/06/12

      Perhaps its because they don’t have to is what makes it all the more significant.

    • marley says:

      11:52am | 25/06/12

      Well, much as I agree that this is outdated, protocol does matter. 

      After all, it is very important to know who should sit closer to the head of the table at dinner - did you know that, if you have a bunch of Lord Mayors over for a barbie, they are seated according to the size of the city?  Or that the Administrator of Norfolk Island outranks the Prime Minister?  Or that you have to know their dates of appointment to be sure you’ve got Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Aspinell in the right order?  You wouldn’t want to make a faux pas when handing around the snags, now would you?

      I am therefore helpfully providing a link:

      http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/A22.html

      Now, maybe we shouldn’t snicker quite so loudly at the poor old Brits.

    • year of the dragon says:

      12:26pm | 25/06/12

      “Or that the Administrator of Norfolk Island outranks the Prime Minister?”

      Get out.

      My kids and I always joke about how they came up with their forms of address: “well if you’re gonna be Your Grace because of the grace of God I’m gonna be Your Excellency because I’m excellent.”

    • old fart says:

      02:03pm | 25/06/12

      what did I see on a desk the other day;
      “I am a nobody, nobody is perfect.  Therefore I am, perfect”

      I love it

    • Mattb says:

      04:56pm | 25/06/12

      if a VC recipient signs his name on a page no other member of the armed forces is permitted, even the head honcho, to sign his name above it. don’t ask me what happens if two VC recipients sign the same peice of paper..

    • iansand says:

      07:22pm | 25/06/12

      old fart - John Eales’ nickname.*

      *If you are from Victoria Mr Eales excelled at, and captained your country in, a game that a few other countries play.

    • Gladys says:

      12:12pm | 25/06/12

      You mean, having Gillard or Bligh on the cover of the Woman’s Weekly didn’t inspire you to buy it?

      and I’m still annoyed that a senator ‘borrowed’ my copy of the Kernot edition and never gave it back.

    • Huonian says:

      12:20pm | 25/06/12

      If you relate to people lower in the pecking order than you do to those higher up - or vice versa - you have a problem.  There’s absolutely no reason to show greater respect for your boss than for the office cleaner - and no reason to respect the cleaner less than the boss.

      Let’s leave all this fake “respect” - for the royals, judges or anyone else - where it belongs.  In a bygone era.  Instead, just extend courtesy and good manners to all courteous and well-mannered folk, irrespective of what they do for a crust.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:39pm | 25/06/12

      @Huonian - I could not agree more. It really makes me angry to see how some people treat others according to their perceived “rank”.  I always think you can tell a lot about someone by the way they treat people in the service industries - if they are rude and / or arrogant towards them,  they’re not someone I particularly want to know.

      As my mother always says, “anybody who refers to their “inferiors” doesn’t have any.”

    • Rose says:

      02:51pm | 25/06/12

      I often tell my kids that they should rate their friends and potential partners on how they treat waiting and retail staff. If you can’t be polite to the people serving you or if you make t obvious that you think you are better than them you are not going to be good friend/partner material. Respect should go to everyone equally, anything less is just not good enough.
      Oh and check how people speak to their siblings and parents, any signs of disrespect there (not harmless ribbing, but blatant rudeness or meanness) and you should give them the flick too smile

    • Samuel says:

      03:17pm | 25/06/12

      I actually disagree quite strongly. Although with a qualification that it depends on what you mean by respect.

      Obviously, we should treat each other equally in the sense that the cleaner has the same rights and dignity as the Prime Minister.

      At the same time, i think there is something to be said for traditions that uphold the dignity of particular offices. For example, I think it’s respectful to refer to the Prime Minister as “Prime Minister” or “Prime Minister Gillard” regardless of how you feel about her because it’s a mark of respect for the role of PM. That doesn’t mean the person who happens to be PM is better than you or me, it’s just a way of acknowledging the important role the PM plays in our society.

    • Anne71 says:

      04:59pm | 25/06/12

      Great advice, Rose smile

    • acotrel says:

      06:37am | 26/06/12

      @huonian
      Would you rather be the peckee or the pecker ? The peckers are all pricks !

    • acotrel says:

      06:38am | 26/06/12

      @huonian
      Would you rather be the peckee or the pecker ? The peckers are all pricks !

    • M says:

      12:26pm | 25/06/12

      Have you found your republican side again Tory?

    • Sean Williams says:

      12:31pm | 25/06/12

      Ahhhh again with the royal family you hate/love/hate/love/hate… Jesus it must be boring to be Australian! Oh I forgot you have a fast horse with mediocre jockey, I take it all back!

    • SimpleSimon says:

      01:29pm | 25/06/12

      Wel also have sunshine and beaches worth visiting wink

    • Gman says:

      01:29pm | 25/06/12

      Jealous much?! Pelican.

    • JH says:

      04:52pm | 25/06/12

      We have jobs here too… But who’s counting..

    • stringalong says:

      07:04pm | 25/06/12

      Don’t let it upset you. This is an opportunity for typical Aussie bleeders to turn a blog into a virtual toilet wall for their rude storie and opinions. You should have seen them when naming Condoms in public. press became permissible. Tiny minds are easily amused.

    • Sean Williams says:

      01:50pm | 25/06/12

      I’ve been. Enjoyed it, but a year was enough

    • marley says:

      02:19pm | 25/06/12

      I’ve been to Britain. Enjoyed it, but a month was enough.

    • SydneyGirl says:

      01:52pm | 25/06/12

      Hey Lizzie, Naruhito called.

      Not a good idea to have an Imperial Household Agency fattening off the taxes of the peasantry and spending its time creating useless rule books.

      Deep depression follows. And in extreme cases, the tumbrils.

    • Mark G says:

      01:55pm | 25/06/12

      Actually these are updated items of protocol. They only sound weird because the situation that the current royals find themselves in is kind of weird in the realms of the British Monarchy. Remember, towards the beginning of the last century a marriage between William and Kate would not have been allowed at all and as such this kind of protocol would never have needed to exist. Kate would have been considered common rabble and for William to marry her, he would have had to abdicate and would no longer be a prince. Remember a similar thing happened when Edward VIII wanted to marry a divorcee and commoner Wallis Simpson in 1936. This is what put King George VI (Queen Elizabeth’s father) on the throne. People in Australia have very short memories sometimes.

    • M. says:

      04:38pm | 25/06/12

      Actually, some of us just don’t give a toss about stone age institutions.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:59pm | 25/06/12

      Think on the positive side here for a moment, Tors.  You are unlikely to be asked to palace by an English prince to meet the family, thus you will not have to bow and scrape to anyone.

      When Kate or Sophie give you a tingle on the royal telephone to let you know how they feel about the new rules, I look forward to your in depth report.  I never doubted your reublican leanings for a moment, Tors.  Not for a single moment !

    • julie says:

      02:01pm | 25/06/12

      It’s very freeing when you decide to be bound by no shackles whatsoever in life - including other people’s opinions, judgements, comparisons etc. Well done!

    • Emma says:

      02:28pm | 25/06/12

      I always wondered, when you live at Buckingham Palace or the White House or else, can you just order a pizza or will they think you are taking the piss and hang up?

    • marley says:

      03:12pm | 25/06/12

      Well, I dunno, but I think I’d just send the footman out to get it, myself.  As for the White House - hell, they’re Americans.  They’ve probably got a Pizza Hut outlet in the basement.

    • amy says:

      03:19pm | 25/06/12

      you could probably just get the cooks to make you one

    • Mark G says:

      03:19pm | 25/06/12

      Emma,

      Well firstly, Why the hell would you want to order a pizza if you lived in one of those locations. It’s not as if you come home after a hard days work without any energy or desire to cook. Those places are pretty well catered. Secondly I would suggest that if you owned a pizza place that was in the delivery area of those locations you would probably take it quite seriously. If an order was placed in New York for example then I doubt it would be taken seriously. I would doubt that a pizza order for the white house would be for the oval office anyway. There are plenty of other staff that work there.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      03:32pm | 25/06/12

      by the time it gets past the beefeater guards, the pizza is cold. Plus the delivery boys hate being snapped at by the corgis, they always trip over them. Humiliating.

    • Redeker Plan says:

      12:50pm | 26/06/12

      I distinctly remember episodes of the West Wing where pizza was delivered for staff pulling all-nighters in the Roosevelt room.  It was probably cold by the time it was walked up from the security gate, but it was American pizza, so being cold was probably the least of its problems.
      I saw it on TV so it must be true.

    • Sancho says:

      02:41pm | 25/06/12

      I thought “blood princesses” sounds cool in a sort of mediaeval, iron-and-fire sort of way, then realised that I’m feeling a hint of the full-blown anachronistic romance with a non-existent past that keeps monarchists going.

    • Tim says:

      04:18pm | 25/06/12

      I hate to be a pedant (“then shut up, then”) but an anachronism is an event happening outside of chronological or historical order. The Royal Family represent the very opposite of that, bless ‘em.

    • Andrew says:

      03:42pm | 25/06/12

      More republican envy. When will you lot grow up and realise the social, political and economic value of any constitutional monarchy (not just this one but any constitutional monarchy)?
      Yes, it IS an odd idea but it damn well works. Do you really want to go down the US Presidential (it will cost me a $1000,000,000 to run) path?
      As for what is written here - it is completely inaccurate with respect to what goes on behind the scenes anyway.

    • marley says:

      04:15pm | 25/06/12

      I agree - it is all completely inaccurate. The corgis have never snapped at the pizza boy.

    • Rose says:

      04:22pm | 25/06/12

      I will never “grow up and realise the social, political and economic value of any constitutional monarchy (not just this one but any constitutional monarchy)?” simply because apart from their value to tourism they offer nothing else, particularly to Australians. have a Head of State who came to that role solely due to biology is not a something that works well, it is an insult to many other more worthy people who are better suited to promoting Australia’s interests.
      Remember. Australia does not have a carbon copy of the Westminster system, our forebears took on features of other political systems, particularly the Americans (Federation and the Senate for example), so I do not see why Australia cannot look around and create their own republic. I personally support the idea of an Australian Head of State elected by 2/3 of a joint sitting of Parliament, with all politicians voting independently of their party, possibly even in a secret ballot, which means there will be no American styled elections, no astronomical election costs and the Head of State will be some one respected Australia wide and who will be non partisan. Currently our GG is selected by one person the PM and ask Howard how well that went with Hollingsworth.
      BTW, which bit is inaccurate, the bit that says that they have ridiculous protocols which see some family members bowing and scraping to others?  There appears to be a genuine except from those protocols in the story which tell us that the story is accurate and your version is inaccurate.

    • ChrisW says:

      06:40pm | 25/06/12

      Ah Rose, take a look behind the scenes and no the GG is selected by the government in power not the PM.
      A constitutional monarchy is a glue which holds a society together, a focal point when there are political divisions, the human face of the country you belong to.
      Your suggestion would politicise the role of the GG even more than it is now. No thankyou!
      I think Andrew is right.

    • iansand says:

      07:28pm | 25/06/12

      When the Lizard of OZ* had the temerity to touch Her Maj in the small of her back, in a perfectly respectful way, a mad Pom in my presence launched a tirade about how the action did not demonstrate sufficient respect for “our Queen”.  My response? “That may not be how you treat your Queen.  It is, however, the way we choose to treat ours”.

      *Aka Paul Keating.

    • gnome says:

      10:14pm | 25/06/12

      You’re all just jealous that these folk are so accomplished.  I saw our future King Charles with his mother- he has achieved the rank of Admiral in one of the world’s major navies. 

      And what a great war record he must have- he has more medals than Idi Amin.

    • Lori says:

      07:39am | 26/06/12

      For the amount of money the royals get just for existing, they should perform something more entertaining than just bows and curtsies.
      I suggest a limbo dance with the pole set according to status.

      As for respect, they should have no more or less than other people.
      True greatness is achieved by people like Fred Hollows, Weary Dunlop, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa etc , who have worked to make the world a better place.

    • MargD says:

      07:56am | 26/06/12

      Protocol or not, there is no way known I would bend my knee to the “Royal Harlot” Camilla!!!!!!!  This is the person who was directly responsible for the death of a princess.

    • MargD says:

      07:56am | 26/06/12

      Protocol or not, there is no way known I would bend my knee to the “Royal Harlot” Camilla!!!!!!!  This is the person who was directly responsible for the death of a princess.

    • Dibatag says:

      11:45am | 26/06/12

      I don’t think anyone should show any respect to Camilla ,she’s just a harlot a right royal one just like her great great grandma it must run in the family.

    • Ron Vincent says:

      05:04pm | 26/06/12

      MargD, do you stutter or was that something Tory Maguire orchestrated. Your bosom friends Lori and Dibatag sound about as nasty and silly as you are. Like it or not the Royal Family is the best thing we have going for us. We bow to lesser mortals such as when we enter a courtroom. I suppose Pat O’shane is your heroin. Get a life you nasty foul mouthed fools. Hey, and while I’m at it, why not have the guts to use your real names, instead of hiding behind names your Labor Party bosses have asked you to use. See ya.

    • Carolyn says:

      11:40am | 28/06/12

      @ MargD - I am no fan of Camilla either, however living in Paris at that time, I can guarantee you it was those vultures on motorcycles in pursuit of Princess Diana’s vehicle who were directly responsible for her death. As much as I’m appalled by Charles and Camilla’s infidelity, let’s not forget that Princess Diana, of her own free will, partook in affairs with married men (football Will Carling, and Oliver Hoare). A fact that is often ‘glossed over’ or manipulated by the media to ensure Diana’s portrayal as ‘the victim’. I wonder he Diana thought about THEIR wives, and the distress QLD caused them? One thing I will say about Camilla - she has kept e dignified silence and has not run to the media batting her eyelashes, then accused the same media of not leaving her alone. As far as I’m aware, and not that UK justifies cheating, Camilla has been Charles’s only extra-marital affair. The tragedy was that Charles was pressured to marry and produce an heir, and royal protocols at the time would not have allowed him to marry the woman he’s now loved for 40 years. Any potential future wife of Prince Charles had to undergo a ‘virginity examination’ by royal physicians. Again, I am not condoning what Camilla and Charles did, but at least Camilla has displayed public grace and respectable silence. For this, and the fact she makes our future king incredibly happy, she has my respect.

    • Carolyn says:

      02:45pm | 28/06/12

      Re my above post….damn predictive text…..have posted again and corrected errors (I Hope!!)

      @ MargD -  I am no fan of Camilla either, however living in Paris at that time, I can guarantee you it was those vultures on motorcycles in pursuit of Princess Diana’s vehicle who were directly responsible for her death. As much as I’m appalled by Charles and Camilla’s infidelity, let’s not forget that Princess Diana, of her own free will, partook in affairs with married men (footballer Will Carling, and Oliver Hoare). A fact that is often ‘glossed over’ or manipulated by the media to ensure Diana’s portrayal as ‘the victim’. I wonder he Diana thought about THEIR wives, and the distress SHE caused them? One thing I will say about Camilla - she has kept a dignified silence, and has not run to the media batting her eyelashes, then accused the same media of not leaving her alone. As far as I’m aware, and not that it justifies cheating, Camilla has been Charles’s only extra-marital affair. The tragedy was that Charles was pressured to marry and produce an heir, and royal protocols at the time would not have allowed him to marry the woman he’s now loved for 40 years. Any potential future wife of Prince Charles had to undergo a ‘virginity examination’ by royal physicians. Again, I am not condoning what Camilla and Charles did, but at least Camilla has displayed public grace and respectable silence. For this, and the fact she makes our future king incredibly happy, she has my respect.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter