Will could save the monarchy

burkan says:

05:44am | 19/01/10

well, that’s a minute i won’t ever get back.

this must be the least thought out, lightest and most misearably pathetic puff piece i have ever read. the theme was, will—he’s not a bad bloke, therefore maybe australia won’t become a republic (mind you, i’m not australian so i don’t really have any say).

give us a break and actually have a think about the issue.

John A Neve says:

05:54am | 19/01/10

Paul,
Says “The man who could save the monarchy”.

Save them from what Paul?

If Australia became a republic tomorrow, what impact would it have on the royals?

Even if Britain became a republic, the royals would continue on their merry way. Just look around the world, people like being serfs, we tug at our forelock at every opportunity. We line the streets and wave, every little girl wants to be a princess. Royals get the best seats at the footy, free entry to most, if not all events. Police look the other way at their wrondoings.

Come on Paul, get real, we have been conditioned for centuries, God made some men kings, or so we believe.

Beige says:

07:06am | 19/01/10

Willy, eh. So King Willy, then. Now there’s a name to conjure with.

But let’s give the fellow a bit of a break. He’s young, pretty amiable,  works hard in a rather dangerous job in uniform when he really needn’t do much at all, and has dealt graciously with the loss of his nice if foolishly self-indulgent young mother.

He’s the latest of a family line that stretches back over a thousand years and that, proud Australians we, is part of our own great if rather shorter history and tradition. We could do worse than nurture our cultural heritage, and he’s part of it.

Pity about the gush of TV and press fawning, but that’s what you get when you’re gobsmackingly rich and famous too.

shabangabang says:

07:44am | 19/01/10

King Willy and Queen Kate sounds better than King Wing-nut and Queen Horse-head. Even though I am a republican, I would support the Monarchy if Charles stepped aside and let William be the next ruling Monarch.

Pete ( the republican) from Sydney says:

07:48am | 19/01/10

@Burkan…couldn’t have written it better myself…who gives a stuff about Will? Bad bloke, good bloke who cares??? he doesn’t belong here in any other capacity than another tourist, he can hang out at Bondi with his English mates or sing stupid songs at the cricket….

The sooner Australia realises this and grows up as a country the better…viva la republic

SM says:

08:15am | 19/01/10

Never trust anyone who starts going bald at age 15

That’s what I always say

acker says:

08:40am | 19/01/10

“pathetic puff piece i have ever read”

You obviously did not scan down to the bottom of the article to the link David Flint - The William Factor….even that headline shudders to make me think how patheticaly regally sycophantic the accompanying Flint diatribe will be.

Fondest memory of Prince Williams trip so far is the Today show team hastily making up some We love U Willy cards for the 12 fans to hold at the New Zealand airport when he arrived

T.Chong says:

09:32am | 19/01/10

Betge: Agree about history and culture, very ihteresting, great stuff,  , but that does not some how entitle this family with obvios vested interest
a say in a democracy.
This family isnt blesed with a devune wisdom, to believe they some how know better than a democracy is to believe in mythology of divinely appointed rulers.
Our democracy doed not need one priveleged family to be its champion or final arbiter.

David says:

09:46am | 19/01/10

There is nothing more absurd about a hereditary national leader than a hereditary poet or pilot. Can we get serious about this please? Why do we bother with democracy if all we need to find is a nice inbred guy from another country to lead us?

If the Windsor family were really reformist and modern they would step aside and let the Commonwealth nations lead themselves. If they were truly reformist they would take a look at themselves and realise they are a tourist attraction and tabloid trash production factory alone, in practice they exist for ceremony and gossip alone.

There is an economical argument for the UK to keep them alone on this point but this does not apply for any other Commonwealth nation - no one travels to Australia to see the opulence and extreme wealth Williams ancestors once lived while their subjects struggled in abject squalor, fighting for every basic right and liberty we now take for granted.

Beige says:

10:27am | 19/01/10

T.Chong, you *don’t* agree.  Please. Whatever point you’re incomprehensibly trying to make, nothing that you have written has anything whatever to do with anything that I said at all.

If the British people and their Government carried a referendum or election and Act that would set aside the Monarchy, then that would be it. Likewise here.

Until then - and it will happen, at least here, in the next 2 or 3 decades - the Monarchy is a very real part of our British history and tradition, and it will remain so afterwards.  History, culture, past and tradition - not things to be consigned lightly to oblivion.

You can respect our own history and past in its whole rich fabric, while still aiming for a good and honest republic. And without backing off from a republic, you can respect a now elderly lady who’s done her life-long duty as she sees it , too.

As for “inbred guy from another country to lead us” what total utter absolute bulldust. Our leader is our elected Prime Minister. Even the odious, devious Kerr knew that.

Liz says:

11:06am | 19/01/10

Time to get a grip mate!How could anyone of Irish ancestry envy the mon archy? There’s no saving them they’re an anachronism and irrelevant to Australia.

AT says:

11:09am | 19/01/10

Paul, you’ve gone totally troppo, mate.

Yes, Willy’s ‘every move will tracked’, just like the moves of every airheaded celebrity is tracked by the trashier elements of your profession and, no doubt, with just as much sincerity, insight and critical analysis.

Yes, of course he was greeted with shouts of ‘we love you William’ just like Michael Jackson was greeted with shouts of ‘we love you Michael’ by similarly slack-jawed sickly superficial sycophants.

I’m not sure what to make of your quoting a gushing Hello reporter. Unless they’re commenting on boob jobs, fashion faux-pas, scandalous romances, sex tapes etc, I seriously doubt they can be afforded too much credibility.

Your toying with the idea of maintaining Australian monarchical links only if Willy is a ‘close prospect’ is an outrageous sacrilege, you heathen. It is by divine edict that the monarch is installed, don’t you know? Be careful lobbying for the idea of YOU selecting who should head of state — you might get smote something fierce or even be labelled a republican.

If you need to service your ‘crown envy’ you need to accept that you, like me, are a peasant who will never ‘have a drink with Will’ and that the current succession plans are writ in stone and you must abide by them — that’s another ten/twenty years of this queen, then ten/twenty years of Chuck and only after that will your beloved Will get his chance. By which time, of course, Willy will probably be as compromised a character as his father. But that’s your ‘crown’ for you.

Personally, I think you’d do better to rally for a republic than fantasise about a hipster’s monarchy. Having an Australian president with whom you’d like to have a drink is much more likely a prospect as is actually having drink with your ruler. After all, you, my impending fellow citizen, will have played an active role in s/electing them rather than pathetically hoping their majesties might reform themselves after all these centuries.

Also, you might more objectively report on Willy’s visit to NZ — c’mon, he copped one in the goolies! How can that not be worth the attention of The Punch?

acker says:

11:21am | 19/01/10

Sky News reader just remarked about Prince William’s packed itinery…
First stop lunch at Admiralty House with the Governor…I wish every time I landed somewhere that some dignatory would pick me up in a limo and whisk me off directly to a swish lunch.. Wake up being a Royal is a pampered and cushy lifestyle…and one where one does not have the mundane worry about paying any bills..

Beige says:

01:18pm | 19/01/10

Quite agree, Deakin, you raddled old centralist you.

Senator Minchin and his little grab-bag of much darned sock-puppets will hold us up as long as they can, but a Republic we will have, later if not sooner.

While we still have a Monarch of Australia, let it be whosoever succession, duty and tradition dictates. Whoever the occupant of the day is, let us accord them polite respect. We’re adult enough to manage that, even while we get ourselves to agree how best to become a Republic.

And in either case, let our Head of State be in title only, however selected.  And let the leader of our country be the elected Prime Minister of the majority party in our House of Representatives, without let or hindrance by said titular Head of State.

D’ye hear there, down Yarralumla way? No more whispering to the Old Boys behind closed doors, thanks all the same. We already know how to choose our PMs.

SM says:

01:49pm | 19/01/10

The interest in Prince William’s visit has more to do with his celebrity status than any underlying love of the Royals

Sam Chowder says:

02:49pm | 19/01/10

We should keep the monarchy, but have an Australian as a monarch and what better way to select one than by Lotto - the incumbents will be far superior to the inbred Germans and Greeks we currently use.

Kevin Rennie says:

02:54pm | 19/01/10

With the current interest in Prince William’s visit to the colonies, a look at the royal website is good for a laugh. The monarchy is supposed to stay relevant and modern. The Google Maps Past and future Royal visits in my area should be bookmarked by anyone visiting the mother country. More at http://www.redbluffr.com/

Brad Coward says:

03:14pm | 19/01/10

Still no one can tell me the financial cost of becomming a republic.  Still no one can tell me how the life of even one individual will improve as the result of Australia becomming a republic.  The issue of an Ausralian Republic is always trotted out every time Labor wants to distract the easily distracted from the real issues of the day.

yas says:

03:47pm | 19/01/10

i enjoy the romance of what the royals represent; a very thin connection to a heritage and grandeur of centuries past- though not all positive, its still notable and thoroughly interesting. i would like for them to maintain some semblance of “nobility” when they are eventually made redundant. as horrible as some histories are, the stories of kings, queen and princes is a sad thing to loose. personally, the Agha Khan is a not so distant cousin of mine on my mother’s side… who cares?

Biff says:

04:23pm | 19/01/10

The Prince is developing a bald spot on top of his head. Will this in any way hold him back or make him unfit to ascend the throne?

Beige says:

05:08pm | 19/01/10

Humm. Let’s see now, Biff. Oh yeah. Lets try, oh, Oz PMs for starters. As big cheese as we Republicans need, but you’ll get the parallel.

Sir Joseph Cook: bald as a coot.
Sir William McMahon: bald as a coot.: bald as a coot.
John W Howard: bald as a coot.

And the last two were deaf as a beetle too. And your point was?

Yas: “very thin connection to a heritage and grandeur of centuries past”. We’ll take it you’re not Australian then, and never got a day off as a kid to go with your school to a Royal parade. And your father never fought under the Jack or the Oz flag in either War. George, Duke of Gloucester and King George VIs brother, was our war-time Governor General at what was still a dangerous time. Charles Prince of Wales went to school here in the 60s. Etc etc etc.

We still have Australians living who were pleased to accept Imperial Honours, and every Victoria Cross bar one (Trooper Donaldson VC Australia, 2009)  ever awarded to an Australian in war was by Royal warrant.  Indeed every WW I and WW2 decoration and gallantry award you see on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day was awarded by the Sovereign of the day.

Thin connection centuries past be buggered. Our past is our heritage. The fact that you are commenting in total ignorance of our Australian history won’t alter the fact that a major and pround part of that heritage is British.

iansand says:

05:58pm | 19/01/10

A Republic is a distraction, to be wheeled out at times of political crisis.  I will welcome it when it comes (provided there is no nonsense about electing the Prexie - have you people given a moment’s thought to the political hacks and wannabes this will involve?  No one who is fit for the office would stand) but otherwise not worth missing my morning cup of coffee.

D'oh says:

06:19pm | 19/01/10

@T.Chong

Wow, and you accuse me of not having a sense of humour!!

Jasper says:

08:03pm | 19/01/10

As every monarch since Charles II has been so with the assent of the parliament (i.e. the people), I’d argue that Britain, and therefore Australia, are already republics.

The restoration of Charles II was by parlimentary invitation. His brother James was ousted by parliament & William III was invited by parliament to take James’ place. Parliament acted again to ensure the succession of George of Hannover. Things settled down for a while and they let the crown follow “normal” lines of succession play its role but parliament again acted when Edward wanted to marry Wallis Simpson and he was forced to leave the crown to his brother.

In addition to that, the executive powers of the crown have have been moved to the PM and cabinet by a strange arrangement whereby the monarchy only theoretically has those powers but doesn’t use them.

In Australia we have the added layer of rebublicanism in our constitution, as the preamble states: “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth…”

Again, it is in the people that legitamacy ultimately resides in out political system, not in an unelected, hereditory monarchy. If republicans in Australia want to succeed I’d suggest that we concentrate in pointing out how little would change if we became a “formal” republic rather than a de facto one.

Loz says:

09:55pm | 19/01/10

Another wish wash of personal biases and ignorance towards our nations sovereignty. Australia’s heritage continues to get tossed into a buy and sell column like a marketing commodity depending on the individuals background or prejudices. There seems to be a lot of self will and not to much of what is the will for the country itself.  Only 5% would know our nations sovereign heritage. Only 17% knew we had a constitution in 1999 . A crowned democracy worth keeping, if only the nation knew what they had.  Do we get rid of the newspaper just because we don’t like a journalist.

Beige says:

05:39am | 20/01/10

IanSand has lost the plot for once. The three articles about William Wales were initiated by The Punch, one written by a staffer, and one by the archest Monarchist the country has. Nothing to do with distraction. What total tosh.

As for Loz’ impentetrable forest of put downs, pffft.  History and heritage aren’t just what we remember in a beery haze on one day a year. Our culture, history and heritage are woven inextricably into our country - through our national collections, our national instututions and the very buildings themselves, in every State and Territory. In our city parks, by name and statue. In books, in magazines, in societies large and small, in groups of volunteers large and small. In local war memorials, in the small museums and historical societies of town and district, in local festivals and shows, on the “local area” shelf in your newsagent and still more in your bookshop.

Built, written, drawn, painted and made, collected and displayed, discussed, flimed, and published. Our history, heritage and culure is all around us, visible,  cared for and even, yes, remembered.

Wish wash, is it. Nonsense.

iansand says:

07:41am | 20/01/10

Biege@6:39.  Thank you for the “for once” (I think).  However, absent Mr Wales, this would not have surfaced as an issue now. 

I bet, if things start getting a little too interesting for our beloved leader, the republic will surface (in fact I half heard something on the news this morning about a referendum).  The republic is a clear point of difference between Abbott and Rudd, and one on which the majority of opinion is on Rudd’s side.  I guarantee the Ruddster will wheel it out sometime between now and the election if Abbott gets too close.

Matt D says:

10:00am | 20/01/10

Spare me all this drivel about the Royals. Totally irrelevant to Australia and our way of life, in fact I find their mere presence an insult to my intelligence.

Napolean says:

10:08am | 20/01/10

Doubt it. It is still a system based on hereditary rule. Makes me sick. Shut them down.

Lucky says:

07:20pm | 20/01/10

With respect to SLF’s lamentation of the nations self esteem, maybe we have had freedom to easy that we don’t appreciate it.  Especially, being under the umbrella of the Crown, could we be the freeloaders? People need to look at what this nation has achieved compared to nations that are much much older. Just Lucky?. If abdicating for a President is very tempting and worth paying for, then we only have to look at the recent appointment of the EU President. A wage of $580,000 a year with a travel budget of $7.22 million, 10 body guards, a total office budget of over $40 million and a palace under construction at a cost of over $500,000 million to the taxpayer. The President was appointed by 27 politicians sitting together to appoint their man. No Parliament, no election, no consultation with the people and only one state of the 27 were asked if they wanted a President. Abdicating, would also bring other benefits of attitude for a united nation under a republic: full admiration and trust for a President, glowing reports of advocacy from newspapers and chat sites, no complaints and happy taxpayers ... and we will all live happy ever after ... not!

graham b says:

09:44pm | 20/01/10

Who ever would trust a politition to elect a President would have to be mad. Changing our Constitution that works as was shown to work in 1974 is also madness. “If it works don’t fix it.”

Laurent says:

08:30pm | 08/05/11

annon-c-ici, Nouvelle plateforme pour placer des annonces mais pas seulement, vous y trouverez comment référencer vos site, mais aussi comment devenir producteur de chanteurs. plus encore à découvrir.

http://renumeraweb.be

insanely cheap flights,cheap travel,travel leisure says:

03:31pm | 06/10/11

please visit[url=“http://cheaptravelresource.com”>Insanely Cheap Flights</a>

<a ]http://cheaptravelresource.com[/url]