How Long before you realised that Australia was or was not the place that you wanted to spend the rest of your days ?

[newjez]

4 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

When I'm writing the few Xmas cards I still send (actually 1st Day of Issue post cards from Oz Post) I change "Merry" to "Happy" so it does not clash with "and a Happy New Covid" (sick) (sic).

The only people who are offended by "Christmas" are leftie wokes like Harry and Yoko (sic). People from other faiths have no such problems.

I saw some Pommie backpackers interviewed wearing Santa hats with their cozzies on Bondi Beach who were all naturally devastated that they were unable to go home for Christmas.

It's a massive strawman argument from the right. The yanks have always said happy holidays because their holidays span from Thanksgiving to new year. It's just the right trying to make an issue out of something that never was.

The only people I've ever met who object to Christmas are the atheists, and even most of those aren't bothered.

But I do object to being drawn in to defend the royals when we know that they are ALL a bunch of inbred out of touch nobody's, who have no relevance or connection to any of our lives, and the sooner Australia gets rid of them the better.

[Parley]

15 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

That’s not the life she’s looking for.  Close family.  “Dropping in” several times a week doesn’t align to a 2 hour train ride.  
 

She will win. You'll be living spitting distance from the in-laws.

I agree might as well move now. not when houses are $3M.

[Marisawright]

16 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

That’s not the life she’s looking for.  Close family.  “Dropping in” several times a week doesn’t align to a 2 hour train ride.  
 

You've just moved how many thousand miles for her and she can't manage 2 hours?  Who's she married to, you or the family?  

As Quoll says, the likelihood is that she ends up living in her family's pocket, and you become the third wheel.   That's difficult to deal with even if you  love where you live. If you're stuck in an environment you dislike too, you're facing a lifetime of misery. In your shoes I'd be pointing out that if you're going to compromise, she needs to meet you halfway.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Marisawright

[Tulip1]

You’ve mentioned your partner suggested you join some clubs.  How about she help you a bit more than that and as a couple you both join some groups/start up new hobbies/pastimes together.  From that new friendships may well happen but either way, you’ve moved as a couple and that being a successful move for both should be important.  Suggesting you go off and find some new friends alone while she’s home and dry is a bit harsh. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Tulip1

[Quoll]

22 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

That’s not the life she’s looking for.  Close family.  “Dropping in” several times a week doesn’t align to a 2 hour train ride.  
 

Oh dear,  poor you. It wont take long for the resentment to kick in if you are having to live in the inlaws pockets.  For us it was a good 12 hour drive back in the day (marginally closer now the roads have been improved LOL) and that was just about right.  We both had to learn a new place, make new acquaintances, make a similar effort to see our families and they us.

[MARYROSE02]

18 hours ago, newjez said:

It's a massive strawman argument from the right. The yanks have always said happy holidays because their holidays span from Thanksgiving to new year. It's just the right trying to make an issue out of something that never was.

The only people I've ever met who object to Christmas are the atheists, and even most of those aren't bothered.

But I do object to being drawn in to defend the royals when we know that they are ALL a bunch of inbred out of touch nobody's, who have no relevance or connection to any of our lives, and the sooner Australia gets rid of them the better.

Australia, like many other countries, is a constitutional monarchy. We had a referendum on the question of changing to a republic and the Australian people rejected it. I doubt if there is any surge in support for another referendum.  

I assumed that the only people who are in favour of the monarchy are "loyalist" Brits and older, conservative Aussies but that's not the case. Many immigrants come from countries with monarchies,  eg Japan, Thailand,  NZ, Canada, the Pacific Isands, the European monarchies. 

Come up with more valid reasons to change to a republic,  perhaps with some examples of republics which are "better" than our "constitutional" monarchy.

Would you choose to live in Germany,  France or Italy over Belgium, The Netherlands or Spain because the republics have leaders who are more in touch with their people? More democratic? Better governed? Cheaper government?

 

[beketamun]

On 27/12/2021 at 08:29, Parley said:

I can't believe Harry and Meghan.

You've spilt something down your pinny, love 

[beketamun]

On 27/12/2021 at 17:46, Quoll said:

They were but all those poor little fans who pour their hard earned pennies into their coffers (so that up to 95% can be skimmed off to help pay their books) think they're doing a Good Thing and donating to charity! 

Are you saying that they skim 95% off charitable donations to fund their lifestyles?   That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Surely they have the money she's just won from her libel case, printed on the front page on Boxing Day, or the big money they make anyway? 

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/meghan-markle-receives-public-apology-and-major-payout-from-british-tabloid-after-lawsuit-win/news-story/e91c422dcebdac5c708b49a6dff225c7

https://afrotech.com/meghan-markle-businesses-duchess-of-success?item=3

[newjez]

5 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

Would you choose to live in Germany,  France or Italy over Belgium, The Netherlands or Spain because the republics have leaders who are more in touch with their people? More democratic? Better governed? Cheaper government?

That's a silly question because none of those countries is Australia.

When the queen dies they will ask the question again, and chances are it will pass. The only question will be is whether the head of state is an honorary position, or whether it has real power which would require a shift in government.

[MARYROSE02]

On 28/12/2021 at 22:42, newjez said:

That's a silly question because none of those countries is Australia.

When the queen dies they will ask the question again, and chances are it will pass. The only question will be is whether the head of state is an honorary position, or whether it has real power which would require a shift in government.

Not a silly question because you have to persuade us that a republic is a better form of government than a constitutional monarchy. How can you do that without citing examples? Otherwise you are advocating a leap in the dark - change for the sake of change.

Not that I care myself. I just dislike the likes of Peter Fitzsimmoms, Malcolm Turncoat and other like minded leftie wokes.  Whatever that want I don't want. 

[Marisawright]

8 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

. I just dislike the likes of Peter Fitzsimmoms, Malcolm Turncoat and other like minded leftie wokes.  Whatever that want I don't want. 

Well, that's not a very sensible way to make decisions.   However back to the argument - I am not a great fan of the monarchy but I do wonder if a republic is any better.

The thing is, every country needs a figurehead at the top.  Don't ask me why, it just seems to be the way human nature works.  Everyone has a King or Queen or President. That person tends to become idolised or worshipped, to a degree.

There are two great things about a royal  figurehead.  One, they're usually bound around by laws that prevent them taking advantage of that worship.  Two, they are born into it, they dn't seek the position, and they're usually content to accept it as it is.  They always stay just a figurehead. 

But when you have a President, he has to put himself forward for the job. That might mean he's inspired to serve his country, but more often, it means he's power-hungry or ambitious.  The laws limiting his powers are rarely as strong as those around a monarchy, and in some countries he's directly involved in running the country and can overrule the parliament (or whatever the people's representatives are called there).  So it just needs some megalomaniac to get appointed President and suddenly you're sliding into a dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do. 

For those reasons, I think the monarchy as a figurehead has its merits.

[Quoll]

On 28/12/2021 at 19:38, beketamun said:

Are you saying that they skim 95% off charitable donations to fund their lifestyles?   That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

 

 

No not really. Their foundation is registered in Delaware where they are required to account for only 5% of donations to be passed on to "worthy Causes" the remaining 95% may be used as tax write offs ie expenses. Delaware is apparently renowned for its generous tax write offs. 

Not sure how much their "foundation" is actually raking in. For the tax year 2020 they reported donations less than 50k to the IRS. 

If they were rolling in dough they wouldn't be whingeing that Charles had cut them off. Rumour has it that Spotify will be dumping them too because of failure to produce marketable material and who knows if/when Netflix will give them the flick. 

[Blue Flu]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Well, that's not a very sensible way to make decisions.   However back to the argument - I am not a great fan of the monarchy but I do wonder if a republic is any better.

The thing is, every country needs a figurehead at the top.  Don't ask me why, it just seems to be the way human nature works.  Everyone has a King or Queen or President. That person tends to become idolised or worshipped, to a degree.

There are two great things about a royal  figurehead.  One, they're usually bound around by laws that prevent them taking advantage of that worship.  Two, they are born into it, they dn't seek the position, and they're usually content to accept it as it is.  They always stay just a figurehead. 

But when you have a President, he has to put himself forward for the job. That might mean he's inspired to serve his country, but more often, it means he's power-hungry or ambitious.  The laws limiting his powers are rarely as strong as those around a monarchy, and in some countries he's directly involved in running the country and can overrule the parliament (or whatever the people's representatives are called there).  So it just needs some megalomaniac to get appointed President and suddenly you're sliding into a dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do. 

For those reasons, I think the monarchy as a figurehead has its merits.

I certainly agree with a lot of the above. The alternative is too likely to incite corruption and power play among other issues. Power is already far too unaccountable in Australia. 

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

No not really. Their foundation is registered in Delaware where they are required to account for only 5% of donations to be passed on to "worthy Causes" the remaining 95% may be used as tax write offs ie expenses. Delaware is apparently renowned for its generous tax write offs. 

Not sure how much their "foundation" is actually raking in. For the tax year 2020 they reported donations less than 50k to the IRS. 

If they were rolling in dough they wouldn't be whingeing that Charles had cut them off. Rumour has it that Spotify will be dumping them too because of failure to produce marketable material and who knows if/when Netflix will give them the flick. 

I think the answer is in the kind of lifestyle they expect to lead. Harry’s existing personal fortune would be more than enough to keep you or me in comfort for life, but their expectations are different 

[Quoll]

51 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

I think the answer is in the kind of lifestyle they expect to lead. Harry’s existing personal fortune would be more than enough to keep you or me in comfort for life, but their expectations are different 

Yup, I was always brought up with the mantra that you cut your coat according to your cloth but I am guessing such concepts would be foreign to someone who has always had unlimited cloth!

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

Two, they are born into it, 

This is the reason, no matter any other supposed benefits, that Monarchy as head of state is unpalatable to me. Even with laws to limit their influence, influence still happens in various ways. anyone in a position of such power should only be there by the grace and gift of voters, not by birthright that supports an outdated class system.

I wonder, if the primary benefit of a monarch as head of state is the stricter laws to control them, perhaps it’s not an argument for monarchy at all but rather for stricter laws to control presidential/elected heads of state?

edited to add - I’m not sure why that quoted @Blue Flu as I was trying to quote @Marisawright

Edited December 30, 2021 by MacGyver

[calNgary]

On 24/10/2020 at 22:16, bug family said:

Just wondering, at what stage did you realise that Australia was the place that you wanted or did not want to spend the rest of your days ?

For me before I had even set foot in Australia I knew and voiced, that I would want to return home to the UK one day,  As a couple we set a goal of 10 years then we would return, with hindsight this was a bit naive I now realise this, as a lot can and has happened in the 9 years we have been here, for example, we are no longer living as a married couple (we are like best buddies and share the house still), my wife no longer would consider going back home, we also have two children now, where as we came with only one,  and finally all my wife's family now live here, so she is settled......but me...I will still go home one day of that I am sure, .........................what about you?

Just a quick reminder what this thread is about. We do have a Royals thread you can continue your conversation on if you wish.

 Cal x

[Blue Flu]

4 hours ago, MacGyver said:

This is the reason, no matter any other supposed benefits, that Monarchy as head of state is unpalatable to me. Even with laws to limit their influence, influence still happens in various ways. anyone in a position of such power should only be there by the grace and gift of voters, not by birthright that supports an outdated class system.

I wonder, if the primary benefit of a monarch as head of state is the stricter laws to control them, perhaps it’s not an argument for monarchy at all but rather for stricter laws to control presidential/elected heads of state?

edited to add - I’m not sure why that quoted @Blue Flu as I was trying to quote @Marisawright

I was wondering just what that quote had to do with me. 

[Rallyman]

On 27/12/2021 at 18:02, FirstWorldProblems said:

That’s not the life she’s looking for.  Close family.  “Dropping in” several times a week doesn’t align to a 2 hour train ride.  
 

As I said all the best in your choices 

[MARYROSE02]

On 30/12/2021 at 13:21, calNgary said:

Just a quick reminder what this thread is about. We do have a Royals thread you can continue your conversation on if you wish.

 Cal x

The wonderful thing about both Australia and the UK is that whichever you prefer, you get to live in a constitutional monarchy!

[Blue Flu]

On 29/12/2021 at 21:21, MARYROSE02 said:

Not a silly question because you have to persuade us that a republic is a better form of government than a constitutional monarchy. How can you do that without citing examples? Otherwise you are advocating a leap in the dark - change for the sake of change.

Not that I care myself. I just dislike the likes of Peter Fitzsimmoms, Malcolm Turncoat and other like minded leftie wokes.  Whatever that want I don't want. 

No mention of that white collar propagandist for the Property Council I note though. Will the damage down be beyond fixing?  So lacking in inspiration that he even plagiarized the nickname as well as personal hobby (rugby league) of Anthony "Albo " Albanese. 

ScoMo hoax is of course who I refer to. Someone like him becoming President defies any serious thought  with regards to doing away with the system that exists.

[Blue Flu]

35 minutes ago, MARYROSE02 said:

The wonderful thing about both Australia and the UK is that whichever you prefer, you get to live in a constitutional monarchy!

Doesn't mean both countries possess  the same rights though. Britain has a written Bill of Rights. 

[bug family]

wishing you all a safe and happy 2022

For me this year will be the start of another adventure in life and the year I finally get to go home

Good luck to you all this year and watch this space

[Quoll]

1 hour ago, bug family said:

wishing you all a safe and happy 2022

For me this year will be the start of another adventure in life and the year I finally get to go home

Good luck to you all this year and watch this space

Good luck Bug! 

[Parley]

15 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

Doesn't mean both countries possess  the same rights though. Britain has a written Bill of Rights. 

Australia has a constitution.