Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Australia Day - No April Fool!
Topic Started: Jan 26 2015, 10:54 AM (1,464 Views)
Mobson
Member Avatar

Australian PM Tony Abbott has used the country's national day to announce a knighthood for Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh!

Am I the only one who thought this was an April Fool for Australia Day...apparently not as the leader of the opposition Labor party, Bill Shorten, said it was "anachronistic" to give the top award to a British royal on Australia Day. He told Fairfax radio he thought the news was a joke at first, adding: "Why would we give him our top Australian honour? He's already got a lot of them." Whereas PM Tony Abbott who reintroduced the honour last year, said the Prince had lived a "long life of service and dedication".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-30977964
Edited by Mobson, Jan 26 2015, 10:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AmosBurke
Member Avatar

Tony Abbott (who is technically a Pom) wants a crowned republic where as Bill Shorten (Aussie born) is (AFAIK) a republican and wants an elected Australian head of state.

Amos (Aussie born) wants to keep the Queen as head of state, because amongst the current crop who might be nominated, I wouldn't trust them to be head of a pantomime horse, let alone head of state. When the Queen pops her clogs, it will then be Prince Charles and then Prince William, both statesmen in the true sense of the word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

I don't have the disrespect for our politicians that the English generally have (and Aussies?), but I feel the same, Amos. Less about the politicians than the voters, really, who are so easily swayed by a pretty smile, a la John Key, or a strong leader (Helen Clark) or whatever the media issue of the day is.

Prince Philip is quite highly respected in NZ too, mostly due to his support for the Duke of Edinburgh awards which our kids work towards quite regularly. Each year some of the older students from my local school gain at least their bronze or silver award, and the odd one gets their gold. Some members of the royal family, like Prince Philip and Prince Edward, have been very hands-on with this, and have been in personal contact with the students from our very small school in a remote and tiny town in New Zealand. Our students, years ago, began a school newspaper so the kids could use this for the community service component. It has just at the end of the year closed down after some thirty years publication. In their last production of this, they acknowledged Prince Edward's correspondence with and support for the little newspaper.

Australia and NZ are far enough from Britain that the rather shrill media reports of anything they don't like or think will sell newspapers are quite muted by the time they get here. So 'gaffes' by Prince Philip are just greeted with a wry smile and forgotten about two minutes later. (I have read where he knows what is expected from him in this respect and plays on it.) And great age brings with it a lot of tolerance and eventually respect.

All this to say why Prince Philip might be honoured in this way, though it may not be the most sensible thing for a monarchist to do really in a country which would like to see itself as independent and strong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

I am always a little surprised when The Duke of Edinburgh or The Prince of Wales is lauded for the scheme that bear his name. I am sure these things are very worthy and of benefit to those participating, regardless of the branding, but what is their participation? Do they put their hands in their own pockets to fund it, do they have anything to do with the day to day running of it? no, I don't think so. They show their faces at a few high profile fund-raising events and somebody sends out some letters on their behalf. Maybe, if there is a photo opportunity in it, they will be photographed or filmed shaking hands with some of the lucky participants. Princess Anne is a lot more hands-on with the RDA (riding for the disabled) charity, which doesn't bear her name, she lacks the vanity of her Father and brother.

Prince Philip has a very straightforward job: smile, shake hands and don't say anything controversial. That's all he has to do but has failed miserably throughout his life to master these simple skills. He is arrogant and stupid in almost equal measure and Charles is very much cast in his mould. Anyone who is a republican is looking forward to Charles becoming King, which will surely herald the end of the monarchy. Monarchists will be praying for the succession to skip a generation to the equally thick but less annoying William.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

My My Rum! I cannot agree with your harsh words that the awards set up by this Royal father/son combo are in name only....The Duke of Edinburgh award and The Princes Trust are two very worthy charities specifically created to teach, aid and inspire the youth of this and many countries around the world and initially existed and continue to prosper because of these two individuals and the worthwhile projects carried out in their names...it's like saying the Virgin empire would be there inspite of Richard Branson when it would not...it's because of their initiative and their influences that these awards have helped many, many people achieve their ambitions and make their way in the world. To say otherwise is to disrespect their work and the work of thousands of people involved in these two major charities...and actually what if for arguments sake they are only figureheads - what's wrong with that! It would be bloody hard to shake the faith of a young person who is in the middle of his/her apprenticeship to totally change or just enrich their life or someone who has already benefited from these causes.

As for the republicans (small r) they can go fish; I'm sure you're wrong saying it will be the end of the monarchy when Charles becomes King...I tend to favour monarchy whenever the subject comes up and therefore hope he gets to serve, and serve well, in his latter years and yes that William succeeds him and after him his son George...England tried republicanism back in the days of Oliver Cromwell - it did not go well - there always has to be one person, one near megalomaniac in charge - look at Russia and a certain Mr Putin...do I want that for England ...never!
Edited by Mobson, Jan 27 2015, 03:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

You are entitled to your opinion Mobs but the Putin jibe is a bit facile, there are lots of countries that don't have a monarchy, why choose Russia as an example? My question to anyone claiming to be a 'monarchist' is 'do you believe in the divine right of kings?' Strangely, not one person seems to support the thing that underpins the whole concept. The defence tends to be a shaky amalgam of, 'it's quite nice', 'it's good for tourism', a vague fear of the alternative (the Putin defence), 'the Queen does a great job'.When I was a kid they were held up as a terrific example of 'traditional family values' but that has been quietly binned by the royalists. I think, in the 21st Century, to have class and privilege hard-wired into our constitution via the monarch and the house of lords is an absurdity that cannot continue forever.
Edited by rumbaba, Jan 28 2015, 11:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dai Cottomy
Member Avatar

I don't think there is any likelihood of Republicanism coming yet awhile. It would be like the Archers moving away from Ambridge. :$
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

Only one branch or one-fourth of the Archers is (potentially) moving away - the majority are staying put...just like the Royals! ... ... ... <(blooming parasites)> "One is going nowhere"...

Also, but more importantly, the Archers are fictional <eh>
Edited by Mobson, Jan 28 2015, 12:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

I do think British people so underrate the importance of the monarchy to their country. I certainly hope you retain it, so we can. The thought of our head of state being elected by the people, and getting however happens to rate at the moment is not something I look forward to at all. The governor-general, the representative of the Queen here, is chosen by Parliament, and has to have the agreement of the major parties, and I have never heard a word said against them, except when occasionally (very occasionally) they voice a thought which could just be taken as a political opinion. It never is - just the mildest objection to some part of our society. You don't have to believe in the divine right of kings to appreciate having a head of state who is somewhat aloof from government. There are lots of countries without a monarchy - my choice of example is always the USA which seems to have the most expensive way of choosing a head of state that you could imagine, and pretty hopeless at organising how the whole country runs.

I don't think Prince Philip saw his job as quite so colourless as you do, rumbaba. Listening to him talk once he obviously thought he was expected to inject a bit of life into proceedings, and mildly shock people. (People are awfully easily shocked - the thought that Benedict Cumberbatch had to apologize for talking of 'coloured people' makes me sigh rather.)

But without the monarchy what would Britain have to offer tourists that you can't get anywhere in Europe? And tourists are a very important part of your economy now. Castles no better than French ones. Dinky villages - ditto. London? There's always Paris and Berlin and New York and Barcelona and Rome. Mountains and rivers and wildlife have bigger, wilder forms in other countries. (Although Scotland's pretty good in this respect, but also undervalued.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

I want someone to tell me that the monarch reigns by divine right and that it is 'God's will' . That was the line for centuries, when were the goalposts moved? <laugh>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

OK Rum...here is me telling you "the monarch reigns by divine right and that it is 'God's will' ... <(blooming parasites)> "One is going nowhere"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dai Cottomy
Member Avatar

Mobson
Jan 27 2015, 06:51 PM
Also, but more importantly, the Archers are fictional <eh>
No!! Really?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
waiting4atickle
Member Avatar

dai Cottomy
Jan 28 2015, 01:09 PM
Mobson
Jan 27 2015, 06:51 PM
Also, but more importantly, the Archers are fictional <eh>
No!! Really?


Another illusion bites the dust! Next thing we know, Mobs will be telling us there ain't no Santa Claus.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
waiting4atickle
Member Avatar

rumbaba
Jan 28 2015, 11:56 AM
I want someone to tell me that the monarch reigns by divine right and that it is 'God's will' . That was the line for centuries, when were the goalposts moved? <laugh>

In 1689, I think.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

waiting4atickle
Jan 28 2015, 01:31 PM
dai Cottomy
Jan 28 2015, 01:09 PM
Mobson
Jan 27 2015, 06:51 PM
Also, but more importantly, the Archers are fictional <eh>
No!! Really?


Another illusion bites the dust! Next thing we know, Mobs will be telling us there ain't no Santa Claus.

There's NO Santa Claus! <yikes>

But whose that guy I've been leaving caviar and smoked salmon sandwiches with a glass of Dom for the last 40 years! <doh>
Edited by Mobson, Jan 28 2015, 02:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

Yes, the end of the Stuarts' reigns seemed to be the end of the idea of the divine right of kings. The Hanovarians didn't adhere to that, and even if they had by then Parliament was in the ascendancy. In fact, I suppose the inter-regnum really denoted the end of it. I was going to say you don't kill gods, but then perhaps Greek and Roman mythology did have gods killed. No, they were immortal, weren't they?

But certainly there is no requirement for monarchs to have divine rights. Why should there be?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

What right do they rule by if not divine? Nobody votes for them.
Edited by rumbaba, Jan 28 2015, 08:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

They rule by your unwritten constitution, same as here. (Though in both cases, there will be plenty of documents that really form the constitution.) There are hundreds of places over the world where people rule as dictators without any sense of a divine right, except perhaps in their own minds. These are often in republics and with voting (Robert Mugabe, for instance, but he's only one of many).

Britain has moved on, centuries ago, from the concept of divine right. The Saxon kings ruled with the permission of the witan, but without divine right. I don't suppose it was ever a specific right anyway, otherwise why the war between Stephen and Matilda?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

Our unwritten constitution is not worth the paper it isn't written on <laugh>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rumbaba
Member Avatar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31072898
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · International Affairs · Next Topic »
Add Reply