I got a last minute job filling in for someone ill..flight to Canberra to join the jackals in the press pack for The Queen's visit to the War Memorial.

Canberra is an odd place..a city devoted to civil servants and politicians but at this time of the year it looks quite lovely with so many trees ( every single street is tree lined ) despite being a completely planned city built in concentric circles.

It was nice to see so many people..especially hundreds of kids cheering her as she arrived. It's impossible not to like this woman and I'm a Republican at heart.

What is Phillip's secret ???..so bloody healthy looking at 90 and a (reasonably) rigid back.
I always thought he was tall but he's not. Must because you always see her with that tiny woman.

Considering the dramas of the last few years and weeks in other countries I reckon the greatest mistake ever would be to lose the Monarchy. All that would happen is they would be replaced with another tier of government (politcians ) costing the same.

## In the taxi back to the airport (it's a 20 minute flight to Sydney) we went via a suburb totally devoted to porn warehouses and bordellos (the driver pointed out a few that were the most popular with MPs)..weird place.

veritas wrote:
It's impossible not to like this woman and I'm a Republican at heart.

They'll be ripping up your membership card at loony Lab HQ veritas !

[quote]What is Phillip's secret ???[/quote}

Never doing a days work in his entire life ?
No worries .... no stress .... relying on others to pay HIS bills ?

In The Know wrote:
[quote]veritas wrote:
It's impossible not to like this woman and I'm a Republican at heart.

They'll be ripping up your membership card at loony Lab HQ veritas !

[quote]What is Phillip's secret ???[/quote}

Never doing a days work in his entire life ?
No worries .... no stress .... relying on others to pay HIS bills ?[/quote]

Phillip's the only one I like.Can't be easy having a wife and daughter that look like they'd been turned down for the part of catweazel for being too realistic.

In The Know wrote:

Never doing a days work in his entire life ?


It's impossible to serve on a Royal Naval ship and not do a days work in your entire life. But I expect even you know that. In fact Prince Philip served during combat and he saved his ship from a night bomber attack.

I can only presume you post this kind of rubbish for effect. I'm sure most people are not impressed.

veritas wrote:
...I'm a Republican at heart.
...I reckon the greatest mistake ever would be to lose the Monarchy. All that would happen is they would be replaced with another tier of government (politcians ) costing the same....

I've really struggled with this but, try as I might, I can't square it. If the first bit is true, how can the second bit be? Or vice-versa?

What is Prince Phillip's secret? Judging from veritas's report, it's shifting genders!

I always thought he was tall but he's not. Must because you always see her with that tiny woman.

In The Know wrote:
[quote]veritas wrote:
It's impossible not to like this woman and I'm a Republican at heart.

They'll be ripping up your membership card at loony Lab HQ veritas !

[quote]What is Phillip's secret ???[/quote}

Never doing a days work in his entire life ?
No worries .... no stress .... relying on others to pay HIS bills ?[/quote]

I apologise for referring to Phillip as 'her' but I am dyslexic (true)

I suppose In The Know that you could say that having to follow Her Maj about endlessly is a form of work. He basically does the same work as the courtiers who accompany her but at least provides the tabloids with some humorous quotes...such as on being handed an Aboriginal 'stick', a work of art by some child, he handed it back and said.."here put it back in the nest".

Locked Out..I was trying to (ineptly) make the point that without Royalty most of their duties would have to be replaced by politicians etc (elected President or similar) which would still cost a fortune but provide none of the colour and glamour (like The Queen's fab outfits) and overall, they really are a terrific tourist attraction and possibly bring in more money than goes out.

Would all those tourists in London flock to see Buck House if a Berloscini nutter occupied it ?

In The Know- if you are going to claim to be a distant relative of my upper class family at least learn your history..you should know that the working classes and Labour Prime Ministers have always been the greatest supporters of Royalty and they likewise recognise where their support lies !

Maybe I am being infected by the locals..the conservative Oz Prime Minister During WW2, Robert Menzies was so in love with her he quoted a poem in Parliament :

"I did but see her passing by and yet I love her till I die"

Just imagine..Churchill wanted Menzies to stand for election in the UK and was positive he could easily become the British PM.

Imagine poor In the Know decades later..even the Conservatives in Oz are basically loony lefties.

I am a massive fan of the Royal family who do a job they did not ask for with huge energy over their entire lives; every time Charles says something he sounds sensible to me; I love Philip's occasional gaffe - and I think The Queen is a terrific monarch.

JK2006 wrote:
I am a massive fan of the Royal family who do a job they did not ask for with huge energy over their entire lives; every time Charles says something he sounds sensible to me; I love Philip's occasional gaffe - and I think The Queen is a terrific monarch.

I totally agree. Even Prince Harry's taste in girls has to be admired, if the latest photos are to be believed

Well LO - Arab Spring seems (so far) to be affecting Monarchies less than Dictatorships - now whether or not that's a good thing will remain to be seen; as does the contrast between the UK - a monarchy - and, say, France or Germany (democracies).

I feel we have greater stability and think the Royal Family are more value-for-money than our politicians and civil servants.

Locked Out - can you please repost your long post on this topic - for some reason your posts often double up and, having authorised and replied to it - when it came up again I deleted the second one - only to find it seems to have removed the original! Disaster!!

Oh God I feared that and have tried to track it down but it's gone forever! Let me sum up - you're not a big fan of the Royal Family!

Thanks for trying, JK. Where technology fails, Lady Luck and personal vanity sometimes come to the rescue. Disorganized git that I am I had left a window open with the original posting on it, which is just about as lucky as I'm likely to get today.
So, after a little copying, a little pasting and a bit of reconstruction, here it is.

veritas wrote:
Locked Out..I was trying to (ineptly) make the point that without Royalty most of their duties would have to be replaced by politicians etc (elected President or similar) which would still cost a fortune but provide none of the colour and glamour (like The Queen's fab outfits) and overall, they really are a terrific tourist attraction and possibly bring in more money than goes out.

Would all those tourists in London flock to see Buck House if a Berloscini nutter occupied it ?


Good Morning, Veritas.
Well, I {almost} don't know where to begin. Your posting in its entirety , while being short on due deference to historical precedent, is so full of an almost touching sentimentality that it's difficult for me to give it the thorough pants-down thrashing it deserves. Difficult but - and I'm sorry about this - I'm going to do it anyway. It'll hurt me just as much as it hurts you.

Why is it preferable to have a head of State who is permanently in the job because of an accident of birth than to have the incumbent as someone with a record of statesmanship, one who can be held accountable for the job they do and be replaced if - and when - it becomes necessary? Sure, it would probably be a touch less "colourful" or "glamorous" if that person were not "King" or "Queen" Someone or Other, but maybe - just maybe - the outside world might just view us as being just a touch less creaky for giving the job to someone on actual merit?
Just how "glamorous" would it be if our head of State had been, say, Prince Andrew, recently shown to be a complete arse in his dealings with many of those he came into contact with? Had anyone without a royal title been doing the "job" he was allegedly doing at the time he would have been fired without a second thought. Andrew, of course, is probably not doing the job any more either, but that he still would be had he been head of State is, I think, a simple matter of fact.

I hear and read the "they bring in more than they cost" argument regularly, yet am still unconvinced of its actual truthfulness. "They", of course, must refer to the entire family {institution? Firm?}. And while the Queen may be a charming lady who has spent the last 70 years causing Australian Prime Ministers to swoon, one wonders exactly what Prince Michael of Kent's function has been apart from handing over the trophies at Wimbledon every year? And there are many more members of this extended and hugely privileged family in receipt of public funding who contribute even less than Michael...

And must I remind you that Europe and the former USSR are both chock full of erstwhile Royal Residences equally chock full of gaping and goggle-eyed tourists? The Winter Palace, Shloss Hohenzollen and Versaille are but three. Equally, former favoured seats like Hampton Court Palace and Osborne House continue to attract public interest even without any members of our Royal Family gracing their portals.

Buckingham Palace is a seven day a week attraction for tourists even though the Queen wanders off to Windsor or Balmoral for almost half of each week {a "week" in Royal terms being only four days, the weekend beginning on Thursday afternoon}. So I'd say that Buckingham Palace certainly would be {I'd love to be able to say "is" or "will be" instead} a major tourist attraction even without any residents, royal or otherwise. Incidentally, I wonder if you are aware of the current debate here about the desirability of encouraging older people living in big houses to move to smaller places as they no longer "need" that many rooms.

The heating bill alone for Buck House must be huge. Not, I'm sure, that that will have any bearing on whether or not it is well heated. I'm sure it is. The Royal Family share precious few of the domestic decisions which so tax most of us. I'd love the Queen to enjoy much smaller heating bills. Wouldn't you?

Right - so gentle reader, assume this was posted about 5 windows above!

JK2006 wrote:
every time Charles says something he sounds sensible to me

I wouldn't go THAT far. When he pontificates on education - this the man who needed RA Butler's clandestine intervention to nudge his grades up to get him the lowest of 2:2s - he sometimes makes a mess of it, and he needs to do his research before lecturing specialists on science. (By the way: can't anyone explain to the royals when to use the impersonal 'one' and when to say 'I'? They always say 'one' when they're actually making a personal comment (eg 'One is Prince of Wales'), and they sound terribly pleased with themselves for doing so. It grates on the ear. Sort THAT out, Chuck, before making any more speeches about how to teach grammar!) The Queen is surely beyond criticism from anyone, and Prince Phillip has actually been as thoughtful and inventive as Prince Albert in his approach to modernising the Monarchy yet has received far less recognition for it.

Locked Out..feel free to give me a pants down thrashing anytime.

in fact I would pay good money for it.

One of my great regrets from schooldays is that i can remember other students being given a pants down thrashing which is why I always took a front row desk to be near the action.

By the time I began to misbehave they had replaced the punishment with the cane and six of the best over the palm. I hated it.

(that will totally confuse In The Know.. a loony lefty into discipline )

veritas wrote:
In The Know- if you are going to claim to be a distant relative of my upper class family at least learn your history..you should know that the working classes and Labour Prime Ministers have always been the greatest supporters of Royalty and they likewise recognise where their support lies !

My dear veritas - the Beaufort line will ALWAYS be more Regal (in the true sense of the word) than any attachment that you claim !

We were Royal when they were really Royal (before they had to pass over 40-odd immediate candidates until they found one who wasnt a Catholic) !

And long long before we had to scour Europe for distant obsure Germans !