Jump to content
BirdieNumNums

4. Prince Phillip Duke Of Edinburgh

Recommended Posts

I recall at the time of the spear chucking incident it was reported in one of the quality broadsheets that the duke was briefed before the visit that they did this as part of their cultural celebrations with no malice intended; the gutter press neglected to inform us of this as they wanted to sell more of their comics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I recall at the time of the spear chucking incident it was reported in one of the quality broadsheets that the duke was briefed before the visit that they did this as part of their cultural celebrations with no malice intended; the gutter press neglected to inform us of this as they wanted to sell more of their comics.

 

What? Did a Fleet Street tabloid seriously suggest Aborigines were really trying to spear Prince Philip?! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it refers to an off-the-cuff comment made by Phil the Greek when he was in Australia some years ago. For the full story:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102604/Prince-Philips-spear-gaffe.html

It didn't make much impact down here then. (BTW, dear Daily Mail, it is a "dance troupe" not a "dance troop".)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No it refers to an off-the-cuff comment made by Phil the Greek when he was in Australia some years ago. For the full story:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102604/Prince-Philips-spear-gaffe.html

It didn't make much impact down here then. (BTW, dear Daily Mail, it is a "dance troupe" not a "dance troop".)

 

I'd expect that quality of journalism from The Sun

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now our real ruler, Rupert Murdoch, is calling for Tony Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, to resign over the decision:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-28/pm-announces-national-domestic-violence-order-scheme/6051136

 

:blink:

 

In a Twitter post, media mogul Rupert Murdoch called for Ms Credlin to "do her patriotic duty and resign".

 

 

Is Rupert sore because he isn't getting one?

 

Surely the ideal candidate would be Clive James as they may not get another opportunity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now our real ruler, Rupert Murdoch, is calling for Tony Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, to resign over the decision:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-28/pm-announces-national-domestic-violence-order-scheme/6051136

 

:blink:

 

In a Twitter post, media mogul Rupert Murdoch called for Ms Credlin to "do her patriotic duty and resign".

 

 

Is Rupert sore because he isn't getting one?

 

Surely the ideal candidate would be Clive James as they may not get another opportunity.

 

The Prince Philip fiasco might indeed be the straw that breaks the camel's back as our PM faces a back-bench revolt. He might be gone within the week:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/mps-break-ranks-against-tony-abbott-as-spill-talk-heats-up/6068030

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prince Philip fiasco might indeed be the straw that breaks the camel's back as our PM faces a back-bench revolt. He might be gone within the week:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/mps-break-ranks-against-tony-abbott-as-spill-talk-heats-up/6068030

 

Hehe. Like I said earlier:

 

Stupidity tends to eliminate itself.

 

regards,

Hein

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Prince Philip fiasco might indeed be the straw that breaks the camel's back as our PM faces a back-bench revolt. He might be gone within the week:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/mps-break-ranks-against-tony-abbott-as-spill-talk-heats-up/6068030

 

Hehe. Like I said earlier:

 

Stupidity tends to eliminate itself.

 

regards,

Hein

 

Things are getting messier and messier as it all falls apart: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/abbott-tells-mps-to-stop-navel-gazing/6068584

 

It is all that Prince Phillip's fault. Bloody troublemaker. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are getting messier and messier as it all falls apart: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/abbott-tells-mps-to-stop-navel-gazing/6068584

 

It is all that Prince Phillip's fault. Bloody troublemaker. ;)

I never thought that someone more stupid than George W Bush would be elected as the leader of an important developed country but Mr Abbott seems to have proven me wrong. How on earth would you even seriously consider knighting a royal prince? No wonder he is ridiculed for it, and his earlier "shirtfront" comments on Putin and now on this intra-party crisis ("stop the navel gazing and get back to work") show that he is seriously out of his depth as a prime minister.

 

I guess he would be okay as an aussie rules football coach, that would better fit his personality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Things are getting messier and messier as it all falls apart: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/abbott-tells-mps-to-stop-navel-gazing/6068584

 

It is all that Prince Phillip's fault. Bloody troublemaker. ;)

I never thought that someone more stupid than George W Bush would be elected as the leader of an important developed country but Mr Abbott seems to have proven me wrong. How on earth would you even seriously consider knighting a royal prince? No wonder he is ridiculed for it, and his earlier "shirtfront" comments on Putin and now on this intra-party crisis ("stop the navel gazing and get back to work") show that he is seriously out of his depth as a prime minister.

 

I guess he would be okay as an aussie rules football coach, that would better fit his personality.

 

David Cameron comes a close second in the stupidity stakes with his desire to ban all encrypted communications: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/david-cameron-wants-to-empower-his-spies-to-read-all-communications/384468/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought that someone more stupid than George W Bush would be elected as the leader of an important developed country but Mr Abbott seems to have proven me wrong. How on earth would you even seriously consider knighting a royal prince?

I try to imagine Abbott's mind at the time he made this decision. I don't think a wibbling imbecile has much chance of getting in his position, so I assume he has an adequately working brain. If he'd sat back and given the matter a few minutes of thought, he'd have realised it's a Bad Idea. I'm pretty sure he didn't think about it at all.

 

At some moment the idea got in his mind, either his own idea or the suggestion of somebody near, and he decided he liked it. He proposed the idea, perhaps at a cabinet meeting, and more reflective minds around him questioned its wisdom. "Bugger all that, I like the idea, it's mine and I can do this. That'll also show those eggheads that I'm boss. Make it so." Next point on the agenda, failure born.

 

Now normally there are a few checkpoints in the decision making process at this level that enable sinking bad ideas before they're put to effect: committee hearings and parliamentary approval come to mind. In this case there weren't or Abbot bypassed them, and the cat's out of the bag. The story has rush job written all over.

 

This need not be the end of Abbot's political career. Perhaps he's lucky and something happens in which he can show better judgement about something important. Even Churchill made several Bad Decisions (e.g. Galipoli, Dieppe, Force Z, Dresden) that cost thousands of lives and should have ended his political life, but didn't. The bad news for Abbot is that there isn't a war on.

 

regards,

Hein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never thought that someone more stupid than George W Bush would be elected as the leader of an important developed country but Mr Abbott seems to have proven me wrong. How on earth would you even seriously consider knighting a royal prince?

I try to imagine Abbott's mind at the time he made this decision. I don't think a wibbling imbecile has much chance of getting in his position, so I assume he has an adequately working brain. If he'd sat back and given the matter a few minutes of thought, he'd have realised it's a Bad Idea. I'm pretty sure he didn't think about it at all.

 

At some moment the idea got in his mind, either his own idea or the suggestion of somebody near, and he decided he liked it. He proposed the idea, perhaps at a cabinet meeting, and more reflective minds around him questioned its wisdom. "Bugger all that, I like the idea, it's mine and I can do this. That'll also show those eggheads that I'm boss. Make it so." Next point on the agenda, failure born.

 

Now normally there are a few checkpoints in the decision making process at this level that enable sinking bad ideas before they're put to effect: committee hearings and parliamentary approval. In this case there weren't or Abbot bypassed them, and the cat's out of the bag. The story has rush job written all over.

 

This need not be the end of his political career. Perhaps he's lucky and something happens in which he can show better judgement about something important. Even Churchill made several Bad Decisions (e.g. Galipoli, Dieppe, Force Z, Dresden) that cost thousands of lives and should have ended his political life, but didn't. The bad news for Abbot is that there isn't a war on.

 

regards,

Hein

 

Blinded by his own ideology, I'd say. He claims it wasn't a decision he made in consultation with anyone else but a "captain's pick" so he seems to have bypassed everyone. Even other members of his cabinet were shocked and horrified by the utter stupidity of it.

 

By the way, for some real weirdness, watch this notorious clip where Abbott just freezes in an interview:

 

 

 

He and his treasurer, Joe Hockey, delivered the budget from hell last year, which is where the woes began. It was a hardline neo-liberal budget from hell, introducing co-payments for visits to the doctor, raising the pension age to 70, slashing the government broadcaster's funding and deregulating universities (he still found lots of money to buy expensive new warplanes from Uncle Sam though.) Oh, and in the past, Abbott has described climate change science as "absolute crap."

 

"The bad news for Abbot is that there isn't a war on." - There is. Australia is very much invovled in Afghanistan and Iraq still and it is also up to its next in the US' pivot to Asia in order to "contain" China.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, for some real weirdness, watch this notorious clip where Abbott just freezes in an interview:

Urgh. I'm not sure we see an adequately working brain there. That is not thoughtful silence.

 

About that war: of course it's on. The question is: do large parts of the public see it like that? What I mean is: from 2002 to 2010 Dutch troops were getting their arses shot off in Afghanistan. In those years the Dutch were de facto at war. When I made remarks to that effect in pub discussions, I usually met blank stares: "At war? We?"

 

I imagine western leaders prefer such an undeclared war to the declared variety, because it gives them opportunity to plod on without committing to winning it, which certainly in Afghanistan was/is neither possible nor desirable. The problem with such a war is that the public, who pay the bill, soon lose appetite for it when the body bags return home in numbers. It therefore pays to keep the war's profile as low as possible while it still keeps the Septics happy. Unfortunately that reduces its usefulness for internal politics to almost absent. ISTM mr Abbot is learning just that.

 

regards,

Hein

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mots Australians only care about things that affect their own pockets (the budget) and make them laughing stocks (the Prince Philip thing.) They didn't vote John Howard out for his warmongering until his "Workchoices" policy threatened workers' livelihoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How on earth would you even seriously consider knighting a royal prince?

 

 

Its not unusual for a Prince to receive a knighthood...particularly if it is a higher honour...which presumably an Australian knighthood is.

 

 

For example he is already:

 

A Royal Knight of the Order of the Garter (1947) - England

An Extra Knight of the Order of the Thistle (1952) - Scotland

First and Principal Knight of the Order of the British Empire - United Kingdom

Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Redeemer (1947) - Greece

Knight of the Order of the Elephant (1947) - Denmark

Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Phoenix (1950) - Greece

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Charles (1951) - Monaco

Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olaf (1952) - Norway

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Manual Amador Guerrero (1953) - Panama

Knight of the Royal Order of the Seraphim (1954) - Sweden

Knight Grand Cross with Chain of the Order of the Queen of Sheba (1954) - Ethiopia

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Tower and Sword (1955) - Portugal

Knight Grand Cross of the National Order of the Legion of Honour (1957) - France

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic (1958) - Italy

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion (1958) - Netherlands

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Ojaswi Rajanya (1960) - Nepal

Knight Grand Band of the Order of the Star of Africa (1961) - Liberia

Knight Grand Cross Extraordinary of the Orer of Boyaca (1962) - Columbia

Knight Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (1962) - Ecuador

Knight Grand Cross of the National Order of the Southern Cross (1962) - Brazil

Knight Grand Cross Extraordinary of the National Order of Merit (1962) - Paraguay

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Liberator General San Martin (1962) - Argentina

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon (1963) - Iceland

Knight of the Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau (1972) - Luxembourg

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Aviz (1979) - Portugal

Knight Grand Cross of the Royal and Distinguished Spanish Order of Carlos III (1986) - Spain

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Christ (1993) - Portugal

 

So a Knight of the Order of Australia? What's unusual about that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the beads and mirrors offered to placate the natives during state visits. Why do Australia need that?

 

regards,

Hein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So a Knight of the Order of Australia? What's unusual about that?

To be honest, as a citizen of a country where royal titles, peerages and knighthoods were abolished decades ago, I have to confess that I am not the greatest fan of the royal family. For me, Prince Phillip always seemed like a lucky but utterly useless halfwit, who married well but didn't really have a proper job (or genuine achievements) at any time in his life, and someone who (along with his grandkid Harry) periodically embarasses the countries of which his wife is a sovereign with his gaffes and stupidity.

 

I also knew that he was already well decorated, so what does a 456th medal/title even mean to him? And knowing that his wife is the sovereign of Australia, I thought that he would be knighted either by her or his own son, Charles, which seemed like a ridiculous idea.

 

All in all, it may not be unusual, but for me, it seemed like a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to honour someone with... well, some actual achievements or efforts put into making Australia a better place.

Edited by GossipGabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So a Knight of the Order of Australia? What's unusual about that?

To be honest, as a citizen of a country where royal titles, peerages and knighthoods were abolished decades ago, I have to confess that I am not the greatest fan of the royal family. For me, Prince Phillip always seemed like a lucky but utterly useless halfwit, who married well but didn't really have a proper job (or genuine achievements) at any time in his life, and someone who (along with his grandkid Harry) periodically embarasses the countries of which his wife is a sovereign with his gaffes and stupidity.

 

I also knew that he was already well decorated, so what does a 456th medal/title even mean to him? And knowing that his wife is the sovereign of Australia, I thought that he would be knighted either by her or his own son, Charles, which seemed like a ridiculous idea.

 

All in all, it may not be unusual, but for me, it seemed like a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to honour someone with... well, some actual achievements or efforts put into making Australia a better place.

 

 

I'm putting you on my list of enemies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay he's far from perfect. He's made a LOT of blunders in the past. Some were in jest, some were just out of sheer carelessness, ignorance and stupidity. But he's 94, born in the early 1920s! His ignorant views on the world around us are typical of many in the pre-war generations. I know my own gran comes away with some corkers and everyone at the dinner table bites their lip!

But give the man his dues - he has a commendable service to the Royal Navy, has been a loyal consort to Elizabeth II - supporting her in her duties for over 60 years, and he's helped raise millions for charities and organisations that a non-ceremonial figurehead of state just wouldn't be able to do.

I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that a lot of gobshites, like most of the parliamentary Labor Party in Australia are just trying to score cheap political points by appealing to the feckless republicans who simply don't understand the royal family, and are utterly clueless to the hard work and immense contributions they've made to the world.

If you want rid of the royal family then go for it. Become yet another boring republic on the face of the map with another layer or bureaucracy and another halfwit careerist politician at the top of the chain, with far too many powers for one individual (like the US president), whereas the powers of the royal family are on the contrary - watered down and largely theoretical. More democratic in my eyes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use