William, Catherine and George to visit Australia and New Zealand in April

[Blackleaf]

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit Australia and New Zealand in April, Kensington Palace has confirmed.

It is not yet known for definite whether Prince George will also be going on the trip, although it is thought to be highly likely.

If the young prince and future king of both Australia and New Zealand does go, it would mean he will be going on his first official overseas tour at the age of just eight months.

His father, Prince William, was about nine months' old when he went on his first official overseas tour when his parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, took him to Australia in March 1983.

It will be Catherine's first official visit to either country.

It said in a statement, Kensington Palace said: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip

BBC News
20 December 2013

The 2011 visit to Canada was the first official overseas visit for the duke and duchess

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit New Zealand and Australia next April, Kensington Palace has said.

It is thought likely their baby son, Prince George, will also accompany them but a final decision will be made nearer the time.

If he attends, Prince George will be eight months old and on his first official overseas tour.

Prince William has made a number of official trips to Australia and New Zealand in the past.

While the duchess is yet to pay an official visit to either country, she and her husband were in the media spotlight when they flew to Brisbane airport to catch a flight home at the end of their South Pacific tour in September 2012.

Their visit in April will echo the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1983 when the couple took William, then aged nine months old, with them.

Kensington Palace confirmed the visit but released no further details about the itinerary or how long it would last.

It said in a statement: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

Prince William's last official trip to New Zealand and Australia took place in March 2011, when he was in the New Zealand city of Christchurch, shortly after it suffered an earthquake, and in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, which had been hit by floods.

Prince George will be eight months old if he accompanies his parents on the visit

In January 2010 he represented the Queen at the opening of the Supreme Court building in the New Zealand capital Wellington and also visited Auckland, and during the same trip travelled to Melbourne and Sydney.

The duke and duchess made their first overseas visit together shortly after their marriage when they were in Canada and the US in July 2011.

Their only other trip abroad was the nine-day visit in September 2012, which saw them in South East Asia and the South Pacific as part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

BBC News - William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip

 

[Cliffy]

Re: William, Kate and George to visit Australia and New Zealand in April

 

[taxslave]

What did Australia and New Zealand do to deserve this?

 

[JLM]

What did Australia and New Zealand do to deserve this?

Be nice, they are people too! Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -

 

[Blackleaf]

Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.

 

[Cliffy]

Be nice, they are people too! Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -

Yup! They were all criminals.

 

[taxslave]

Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.

 

[JLM]

Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.

And "people like these" differ from other folks?

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.

I'm not sure that Blackleaf has the wherewithal to understand this little concept!

 

[Blackleaf]

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.

Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -

Or they may be descended from your ancestors from 300 years back. I can't remember any royals being transported to the penal colony. It was all commoners, scumbags who stole hats or committed highway robbery.

Yup! They were all criminals.

Don't forget, Britain's North American colonies started off as penal colonies, too. We only switched to Australia as a penal colony only after our previous penal colony, America, gained its independence in 1776. So we could no longer send our scum of the Earth to America.

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

 

[JLM]

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

Perhaps they missed some of your ancestors. (What are vaganbonds?)

 

[Blackleaf]

(What are vaganbonds?)

A vagrant or a vagabond is a person, often in poverty, who wanders from place to place without a home or regular employment or income. Other synonyms include "tramp," "hobo," and "drifter". A vagrant is "a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging"; vagrancy is the condition of such persons.

Both "vagrant" and "vagabond" ultimately derive from Latin word vagari "wander." The term "vagabond" is derived from Latin vagabundus. In Middle English, "vagabond" originally denoted a criminal.

The first major vagrancy law was passed in 1349 to increase the workforce following the Black Death by making "idleness" (unemployment) an offense. By the 1500s the statutes were mainly used as a means of controlling criminals. In the 16th and 17th century in England, a vagrant was a person who could work, but preferred not to (or could not find employment, so took to the road in order to do so), or one who begs for a living. Vagrancy was illegal, punishable by branding, whipping, conscription into the military, or at times penal transportation to penal colonies. Vagrants were different from impotent poor, who were unable to support themselves because of advanced age or sickness. However, the English laws usually did not distinguish between the impotent poor and the criminals, so both received the same harsh punishments.

In 1824, earlier vagrancy laws were consolidated in the Vagrancy Act 1824 (UK) whose main aim was removing undesirables from public view. The act assumed that homelessness was due to idleness and thus deliberate, and made it a criminal offense to engage in behaviors associated with extreme poverty. The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and Wales from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century.

The Pass Room at Bridewell from Ackermann's Microcosm of London (1808 ). Drawing by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin. At this time paupers from outside London apprehended by the authorities could be imprisoned for seven days before being sent back to their own parish. Ackermann refers to the room used here as being for "one class of miserable females" amongst the paupers; presumably mentioning the existence of single mothers would have been unacceptable to his readership. This engraving was published as Plate 12 of Microcosm of London (1808)

Vagrancy (people) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.

LOL Like Prince Chucky and the ugly horse he rode in on ... er married?

 

[JLM]

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

Does Royalty make for being a better person than a "peasant"? Seems to me ever since the Battle of Hastings a good number of royalty have been A$$holes.

 

[JLM]

Here's a list of members of the Royalty that Blackleaf so proudly extols and Henry VIII (who beheaded two wives) wasn't even bad enough to make the list. -.
10 Worst Kings and Queens of England and the United Kingdom | RedState

 

[Blackleaf]

Here's a list of members of the Royalty that Blackleaf so proudly extols and Henry VIII (who beheaded two wives) wasn't even bad enough to make the list. -.
10 Worst Kings and Queens of England and the United Kingdom | RedState

Stop imprinting 21st Century values onto the 16th Century.

Henry VIII was one of England's greatest-ever monarchs, who achieved a lot of great things for his country. Along with another great English monarch - Alfred the Great - he is considered to be a father of the Royal Navy.

Just because two of his wives were up to no good leading to them losing their heads in no fault of Henry's.

Does Royalty make for being a better person than a "peasant"?

A royal is a better person than a peasant.

I'd rather spend a winter's evening dining on caviar in sumptuous surroundings in Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Hampton Court Palace, St James's Palace or Sandringham with a group of royals than dining with a peasant family on a Salford sink estate eating a Morrisons microwave lasagne whilst watching Jeremy Kyle on a fag-ash-stained sofa.

Where real people dine

Where scummy peasant "people" dine

 

[taxslave]

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.



Or they may be descended from your ancestors from 300 years back. I can't remember any royals being transported to the penal colony. It was all commoners, scumbags who stole hats or committed highway robbery.



Don't forget, Britain's North American colonies started off as penal colonies, too. We only switched to Australia as a penal colony only after our previous penal colony, America, gained its independence in 1776. So we could no longer send our scum of the Earth to America.

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

ROFLMFAO You really need to find a real history book. I suggest one that was written in N America since the ones you got clearly were written to appease your pissant rullers.And an attitude adjustment. Foreign royalty are no better than anyone else and most of them are a lot worse.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

That too is wrong. The scum and thieves stayed behind in England while the good people tried to make a new life for themselves away from the restraints of a repressive ruling class.

 

[Blackleaf]

ROFLMFAO You really need to find a real history book. I suggest one that was written in N America since the ones you got clearly were written to appease your pissant rullers.And an attitude adjustment. Foreign royalty are no better than anyone else and most of them are a lot worse.

This is not the first time that I've been told by a North American, incessantly brainwashed by their history propagandists and romanticisers, to "find a real history book" when it is, in fact, THEIR "history" which is skewed as a result of rampant pro-North American historical propaganda and romanticism which is forced upon them by their "historians" and "history" teachers.

What REALLY happened is that it was Britain's thirteen American Colonies which were originally Britain's penal colony, where we sent our convicts.

However, when America became independent in 1776 we could no longer send our convicts there. It was only then that we decided to send our convicts to Australia, as we could no longer send them to North America.

In fact, it is estimated that a QUARTER of all British emigrants to colonial America in the 18th Century were, in fact, transported criminals.

It's this false "history" - a pro-North American propaganda and romanticism - which is fed on a daily basis to the people of North America which is precisely the reason why it has come as such a shock to you that America, not Australia, was Britain's original penal colony. That's because you have never been taught it by your "historians".

The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.The British also would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland, and they would be treated similar to the convicts, except that this also included women and children.

When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements. Australian penal colonies included Norfolk Island, Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania), Queensland and New South Wales. Advocates of Irish Home Rule or of Trade Unionism (the Tolpuddle Martyrs) sometimes received sentences of deportation to these Australian colonies. Without the allocation of the available convict labor to farmers, to pastoral squatters, and to Government projects such as roadbuilding, colonisation of Australia would not have been possible, especially considering the considerable drain on non-convict labor caused by several goldrushes that took place in the second half of the 19th century after the flow of convicts had dwindled and (in 1868 ) ceased.

Penal colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That too is wrong. The scum and thieves stayed behind in England while the good people tried to make a new life for themselves away from the restraints of a repressive ruling class.

Nope. Our scum and thieves and other criminals were originally sent to America, before we then sent them to Australia when America became independent.

 

[JLM]

Stop imprinting 21st Century values onto the 16th Century.

You definitely have a F**Ked up set of values. Certain values don't change from one century to the next. Henry VIII was a pig of a man, selfish and greedy without concern for anyone but himself. Perhaps somewhat like you!

 

[taxslave]

This is not the first time that I've been told by a North American, incessantly brainwashed by their history propagandists and romanticisers, to "find a real history book" when it is, in fact, THEIR "history" which is skewed as a result of rampant pro-North American historical propaganda and romanticism which is forced upon them by their "historians" and "history" teachers.

What REALLY happened is that it was Britain's thirteen American Colonies which were originally Britain's penal colony, where we sent our convicts.

However, when America became independent in 1776 we could no longer send our convicts there. It was only then that we decided to send our convicts to Australia, as we could no longer send them to North America.

In fact, it is estimated that a QUARTER of all British emigrants to colonial America in the 18th Century were, in fact, transported criminals.

It's this false "history" - a pro-North American propaganda and romanticism - which is fed on a daily basis to the people of North America which is precisely the reason why it has come as such a shock to you that America, not Australia, was Britain's original penal colony. That's because you have never been taught it by your "historians".




Nope. Our scum and thieves and other criminals were originally sent to America, before we then sent them to Australia when America became independent.

If you incest.

 

[Blackleaf]

You definitely have a F**Ked up set of values. Certain values don't change from one century to the next. Henry VIII was a pig of a man, selfish and greedy without concern for anyone but himself. Perhaps somewhat like you!

You are trying to imprint the values of the early 21st century, which are mainly PC ones, onto the 16th Century, a completely difefrent era with completely different set of values.

As for Henry, he remains one of England's greatest ever rulers, who founded the Royal Navy and broke England away from the evils of the catholic church, amongst other things. He was a GREAT ruler, and historians agree.