Queen illustrates why the Republic is garbage

The Windsor’s know what to do when institutions are overwhelmed by sleaze:

The Duke of York was stripped of all military titles and patronages by the Queen and agreed no longer to use the moniker “His Royal Highness”, in an attempt to protect the Royal family from the fallout of his sexual abuse case.

That is called accountability: a ruined reputation and demotion from a privileged station.

Now compare this with the Morrison Government following no fewer than twenty or so allegations of rape (I can no longer count), sexual assault and harassment in our national parliament.  Not to mention countless rorts, pork, lies and the general shitfest.

How can one possibly argue that our current system needs to be divorced from the royal family so that we can distance ourselves from Windsor family sleaze?

The Queen has just done what most Australians could only wish for in our political system. She has brought shockingly inappropriate behaviour to heal so that her polity can rest assured that justice has been done, that perpetrators have been expunged, that probity has been acknowledged and normatives protected.

By comparison, Morrison’s government is a cesspit of unexamined and unaccountable filth in the name of every single Australian.

Give us the Queen and get rid of whatever the sickness is that has infected our parliament.

Then, perhaps, we can discuss a republic.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Actually well said that. Queen shows us the way again. This version of democracy will have us running back to the monarchy.

    • HM removed a limb to save the body. Meanwhile British democracy is trashed by a PM who asserts a party is work and has a very large set of legislation for parliament which bans protest outright and enforces an authoritarian state. HM can nothing but read out his lies.

  2. Accountability? Really?

    In the State of Victoria the pubishment is 10-15 years imprisonment so im not quite sure how this constitutes punishment?

    Embarassment perhaps?

  3. Arthur Schopenhauer

    King Harry of Australia
    Lord Duchy of the North Shore.
    Admiral of 18 Foot Skiff Squadrons.
    Patron Saint of Long Weekend BBQs.
    General of jacked up 4wd Brigade.
    Wearer of the sacred Red Roo Cape.
    Opener of Hospitals, Daycare Centres and Racetrack extensions.
    Chief Brewer of Beer.

  4. I’d love to hear an analysis of this case from a Jurisdictional perspective.
    I’m not a lawyer but even to a lay person this whole case smells of jurisdictional overreach.
    How can events, that may or may not have happened in London (over 20 years ago) be relevant in a Civil law suit happening in New York today?
    It all does seem to be a case that’s aimed squarely at the court of public opinion with the intention of causing the maximum embarrassment (to enhance / motivate with the settlement process) gruby gruby gruby.
    Legally speaking I am interested if there is a precedent for bringing such a confused international case.

  5. By comparison, Morrison’s government is a cesspit of unexamined and unaccountable filth in the name of every single Australian.

    Err… have you been keeping up with the Johnson Government?

    • Queen Lizzie has failed because… Mohammad is baby name #1 even though none of the other names have similar variants combined in the same way and the next vaguely similar one is in spot #45 ?

      I think you’ll find the real failure of “defending the faith” is better represented by “No religion” at ~52% (and growing fast) marketshare and COE at only ~12%, rather than Islam at 6%.

  6. TheLambKingMEMBER

    Doesn’t this argue AGAINST the monarchy? We already have the Queen as our head of state, and she has done SFA about our corruption and sexual abuse. An Australian head of state might actually have some powers, but more importantly, the social license, to do something about it!

    Do you seriously want Charles as King of Australia and Camilla as the Queen?

    • Frank DrebinMEMBER

      Pretty hard to endorse a bloke who once had a desire to be Camilla’s tampon.

      If there were a few more colonials paired off with the House of Windsor it might be more palatable but that would never happen.

      Happy to rule the savages but god forbid they would marry then !

    • There’s a lot of things that need fixing (and restructuring) in Australia’s Government, and the figurehead HoS is a lot closer to the end of the list than the start.

    • TailorTrashMEMBER

      George III was mad
      George IV was an obese piss pot
      William IV had 10 illegitimate children ( a Reusean effort to be sure )
      Victoria had her problems
      Edward VII was a bit of a lad
      George V did a solid job (and collected stamps )
      Edward VIII was a cad and a bounder …and took oorf with an American …(most Reusian indeed)
      George VI was a decent chap and stayed at his post
      Elizabeth II ……..duty ……honour …..what more can you say

      And through it all ……..straya diid all right ………

      So let’s pull down the statues ……burn the past ….claim our rightful inheritance ……….and build more slums for
      more new arrivals

      This is the bright new future …….I’m sure it will be great …

      ….just need Harry or Gerry for president

      Getitintya STRAYA !

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      No we want our own King, King Harry.

      Or maybe we could co-op’t the Danish Royals. They are more attractive. And our Queen would be a former areal Estate agent!

    • boomengineeringMEMBER

      The folks had a hobby farm at Denmark WA.
      The bull was twice the size of his mother and still suckling.

    • Yeah, I think the point is she acted at all.

      Meanwhile, all we get is bloviation about not being found guilty in court, etc, etc.

      It’s not hard to get over the bar when it’s lying on the ground.

        • Sure. But Scomo sure ain’t doing the same to try and save the house of LNP, or the Australian Government, for that matter.

    • blindjusticeMEMBER

      All for show, it’s not like he will be out looking for work and somewhere to rent on Monday

  7. blindjusticeMEMBER

    An electable president whose sole duty is to sign legislation into law. With the sole power to refer any legislation to a referendum if they desire.
    Simples.

    The monarch is foreign and provides no accountability. Zero in practice. While I expect similar from a president here at least we could vote for someone who might be a thorn in the sides of the major parties. As long as we can vote for whoever we like…….not some elitist non democratic list.

  8. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    Fitzsimons Republic

    “Keating blasts new republic proposal as dangerous ‘US-style presidency”

    “The difficulty is how to actually manage that kind of election so that you don’t end up with something that is run and funded by politicians, or a situation where the candidate needs to be rich,”

    The leftard virus doesn’t go far outside inner Sydney and Melbourne.

    At the referendum the proposed alteration must be approved by a ‘double majority’. That is:
    a national majority of voters in the states and territories
    a majority of voters in a majority of the states (i.e. at least four out of six states).

    The referendum’s got no chance. Why are the left wasting everyone’s time and energy with this?

    • “The referendum’s got no chance”
      First referendum only has to have one question. Should Australia become a republic?

      The rest is irrelevant until this question gets voted on and muddies the waters. Monarchists get their way and can continue to have a w!nkfest over the Queen and her inbred bunch loonies….

      What a sad bunch we are.

      • First referendum only has to have one question. Should Australia become a republic?

        Doesn’t need a Referendum – just a SSM type plebiscite.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        “First referendum only has to have one question. Should Australia become a republic?:”

        That’s right, and the answer is no. Nothing sad about it. We’re happy with what we’ve got, and don’t want to risk the 4000 unknowns of a BS republic. For 5000 reasons, we don’t trust the left.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        To bl00dy right we are.
        you wouldn’t back this mob (Australians ) to not FIU
        As evidence I call the past 20 years of ( Democratic ) government.

    • “The difficulty is how to actually manage that kind of election so that you don’t end up with something that is run and funded by politicians, or a situation where the candidate needs to be rich,”

      Keating’s not wrong on this – my first reaction was very similar. That is, why type of “election” would it be?

        • blindjusticeMEMBER

          Yea right, Australians should not bow to an English family just because they were born into money and status. It flies in the face of democracy and meritocracy.

          • I couldn’t say it better. What a great lot of serf’s we are. Instead of changing our ways the best option is hang with the royals forever?
            You have got to be kidding….Gough would be turning in his grave knowing what a pack of useless scum we have become.

  9. A republic? We are a far less independent, self reliant, sef sufficient country now than we were 50 years ago! To be a republic would still be a superficial change…