I guess that’s just not important to me then. I don’t care they’re on our money. Cash and coin will be gone sooner rather than later anyway. As for getting rid of the government, it’s nothing they haven’t done to themselves in recent times anyways.
For somrone who diesnt care about them you certainly have a lot to say about them. lol.
3 Likes
I just don’t think there will be any difference if Australia is tied to them or not.
Apart from superficial things like the cash/ coins etc what will really change?
We run our country without them now anyways. Just makes no difference to me whether we are connected or not.
Which is exactly the reason why we shouldn’t be tied to them at all. I’m sure it’s costing us something financially, to have them as Head of State and also whenever our Prime Ministers, Govenors and Governor General to visit them. Not to mention what they still cost us when we have to fund royal visits.
2 Likes
And being pretty much forced to host Commonwealth Games because no one else will!
1 Like
Commonwealth Games are still a thing? 
Again, make me king. You lot would love me to be your head of state.
3 Likes
On this we agree 
They don’t anymore . . .
After the ‘constitutional crisis’ that followed the Whitlam governments sacking, our laws were changed so that it could never happen again.
what would your first order of business be? 
1 Like
I didn’t know being a public figure meant it was acceptable for photographers to recklessly try to take photos of you in busy city streets even while you’re in a car.
3 Likes
That’s completely fair, it’s not acceptable, it’s what led to Diana’s death in the first place.
But the fact is, they got their headlines. They’ve been in the news cycle for the last two days. How can so proudly claim they want privacy when they do stuff like this? A two-hour car chase through New York, America’s largest city and with notoriously slow traffic during rush hours?. Sure, Jan.
I’m sorry, these guys just tick me, and by the state of this thread, a lot of other people off.
5 Likes
Dissolve all parliaments and become the dictator you really need.
2 Likes
Anne confronts Camilla over ‘Queen’ title:
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/princess-anne-allegedly-confronted-camilla-at-the-coronation-dinner/news-story/dbfbecd533a4e76d8910f0754e17c7ef
Princess Anne is right about this. Camilla should be Queen Consort not the Queen.
1 Like
For the sake of the monarchy long term, Charles and Camilla should have been passed over for William and Kate. Those who haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory.
Historically and in terms of precedence, no, she’s the King’s wife, the Queen. She is Queen Consort in position and Queen in title.
Just like Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Mary, and Queen Alexandra, and Queen Adelaide… and like what Queen Catherine will be.
2 Likes
And as Angela Rippon explained when people queried why Prince Philip wasn’t made king, it’s because a king is regarded as being higher than a queen, therefore no partner of a queen will be given the title of king.
1 Like
Well, why not have a bit of equality and not allow the monarch’s partner to have either the Queen or King title? If the husband of a queen can only be a prince then the wife of a king should only be a princess.
2 Likes
Are people just learning this? Maybe I am too old or spent too much time with my granny.
Because it’s the ancient and archaic Royal Family we’re talking about.
1 Like
I am 21 years of age and known this for ages
I thought Camilla was still Queen Consort, ‘Queen’ is just the short hand version. In the same way QE2 was Queen Regnant but no one ever called her that. The consort just was used in the period after the death to avoid confusion.
1 Like