Australians Dumping the Monarchy??
- Thread starter Sons of Liberty
- Start date
Wouldn't expect any other response from a LibTard.
Turf 'em
I've heard all the excuses, and none of them have won my heart over to the monarchist camp.
1. "It's our heritage" - no, it's British heritage
2. "It's what distinguishes us from Americans" - no, if that's what you think really separates us from them, then you have a piss-poor idea of what a Canadian really is. Besides, if we insist on distinguishing ourselves from Americans based on meaningless trivialities, we might as well do something totally useful, like converting entirely to the metric system, etc.
3. "Keeping them saves a few bucks. The Queen is free" This is the worst one. This is the part of the Canadian psyche I don't like: when we think of money before substance. The price tag doesn't matter, what matters is the ability to unleash ourselves from years of cultural servitude. Even if you think it's benign and harmless, I have to stare at the Queen's mug everyday on my twenty dollar bills and coins reminding myself that we are still not entirely masters of our own house.
A united Canada without the monarchy - Letter to the editor - The Telegram
That's like saying that you don't want any Canadians to speak English anymore, because it's "British heritage." The Canadian monarchy is part and parcel of Canadian heritage. The Canadian monarchy is Canadian heritage, not British heritage.
The fact remains, thought, that it was Britain who gave birth to Canada. Canada only exists because Britain founded it.
first is was "silly" now it's "hehehe" - starting to think Cannuck is a butch, would explain the Dipper support.
Maybe, it's not necessary to get the unanimous consent of all of the Australian States to may a big constitutional change, there. Either that, or GASP!! the States and the Australian government all cooperate with each other.
Anyway, here in Canada, everybody has to be singing out of the same hymnal. There are ten Provinces, three Territories and they are all @ssholes, one way or another. The Monarchy is here to stay.
Anyway, here in Canada, everybody has to be singing out of the same hymnal. There are ten Provinces, three Territories and they are all @ssholes, one way or another. The Monarchy is here to stay.
ROFLMFAO..... yup, the republicans are rollin....:roll:
Spokeswoman Gabrielle Hendry said the republic push did not reflect the view of a majority of Australians.
"Unfortunately it's only got 4,000 signatures — there are some 16 million eligible voters in Australia," she said.
"Furthermore, I've seen petitions recently like keeping kebab shops open past midnight which have garnered 25,000 signatures in just a few days."
Premiers, chief ministers unite to sign declaration calling for Australian head of state - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Well there's a surprise, an American throwing threats around. This thread is in the wrong place. It should be under the Jokes section.
Naw hell we'll kick the shyt outa evabody. I'm gonna be at the forefront kickin A and takin names,,,,right after I watch Dancing with the stars.
The Aussies have already had one vote on that issue. No doubt they'll keep holding votes until the monarchy is abolished.
Britain's monarchy hasn't died. It's alive and well. It's been going a lot longer than your republic and it'll still probably be around long after America falls.
Actually, the greatest colony Britain ever had was India. Britain's 13 American colonies only got their independence because Britain didn't think they were worth fighting for that much. Had we valued them more, we'd have won.
And we don't know how long that will take. That could be the year 2562 for all we know.
He might not become King Charles III. He could become King George VII, King Philip or King Arthur.
Yeah, "Charles III" comes with way too much historic baggage.
How about Edward IX ?
If he becomes King Arthur, I hope that the Welsh blow him to smithereens for hijacking their legendary hero.
Since he's far more German than British, how about King Volfgang?
Charles has said that, even though he recognises the turbulent reigns of Charles I (the only English monarch to be executed) and Charles II, he has no problem in choosing Charles III as his regnal name. However, there have been rumours that he still may choose to become George VII, probably in honour of his grandfather, George VI.
He can't be Edward IX because Edward isn't one of his names. His full name is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. At the moment, King Edward IX could be Prince Edward if he asended the throne, but that's highly unlikely considering he's only ninth in line to the throne. But if Kate and William have another baby - and many are saying they may have another this year - and it's a son and one of his names is Edward, then he'll replace Prince Edward as the next royal who could one day become Edward IX.
But only by mass slaughter of his father, his elder brother, and any of his elder brother's children.
Or they, or most of them, die of illness. Or they, or most of them, abdicate after a short period on the throne.