Vice-Regal Saint: Republican Rudd Meets the Queen
Those who did not live... before the Republic will never be able to know the sweetness of life. - Talleyrand
Professor David Flint at Australians for Constitutional Monarchy says all that needs to be said about Prime Minister Rudd's visit with the Queen at Windsor Castle yesterday. The Telegraph is connecting Kevin Rudd with the declaration "Australia will become a Republic", but nowhere in the article did he actually say that.
That there will apparently be an "accelerated public debate" over the next year on the issue, but that "it is not a top-order priority", is no doubt the prime minister's way of throwing scraps of meat at the republican troops without wrestling too many loyalist feathers. It is deliberately ambiguous and non-committal, without allowing republicans-in-a-hurry to question his republican credentials. But if in fact he is cool to the idea, then perhaps - just perhaps - he became a little cooler after meeting with Her Majesty yesterday. Perhaps - just perhaps - he experienced a little of that sweetness of life.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
17 comments:
Let's hope so. Mr Rudd is the most popular Prime Minister in the history of Australia and he could do a great deal of damage to the Crown. Let us hope he shows us some mercy.
Only popular in so far as he is an absolute cipher, at this point, though...?
Tony Blair was the most popular PM in British history at one point, too. He did some damage :(
I'd like to do some damage to Tony Blair...
The media often say Rudd is quite unknown, the simple fact is they mean he is unknown to them, since his entry to politics he skipped the inbred Canberra press gallery and went straight to the people with regular appearances on early morning television programs. So take all the 'unknown quantity' rubbish the media print with a grain of salt, as with anything the media prints.
At worst the Prime Minister understands that to the vast majority of Australians a republic is a non-issue. Why waste political capital on something only a few rabid fools in the parties left actually want?
Mr Rudd is unpredictable on this issue, basically because he is a “media tart” who loves the lime-light. If it gets the pro-republic media on side than I’m afraid he will push hard for a republic. Because of his bizarre popularity (something I just cannot understand) if he is pushing a republic than monarchist are in great danger.
Hello guys...while this comment is not related to KRudds popularity I suggest you all take a look at
www.tpuc.org
This site has the affidavit of one John Harris which is a petition to Her Majesty citing 'Lawful Rebellion under Article 61 of the Magna Carta. Happy reading. Terry
No more a media tart than Howard, unfortunately it is what is required of politicians now. One of the reasons why it is more important to keep the Crown now than ever before.
I'm not sure why he is so popular myself though, and I'm very well disposed to him. I do know an enormous number of people despised Howard. and after he was percieved as lying about interest rates a lot of his traditional supporters (who were traditional Labor voters under Keating for the most part) felt betrayed by him.
Mr Howard was not a media tart as any thinking person can inform you.
The media never liked Mr Howard but they LOVE Mr Rudd. Mr Rudd is all style over substance and is not a loyal Australian because of his silly remarks "one a republican always a republican" what a sick joke of a man.
The media thought Howard was some kind of little god, and he never lost an opportunity to parade himself before it. Any sporting event, any public event where it could be relied upon that there would be a heavy media presence, Howard would be there. I lost count of the amount of times the little worm usurped the Governor Generals rightful place just so he could bask in the limelight. Rudd might be a bit of a media tart but Howard was a complete media whore.
Your opinion that Rudd is all style and no substance has no basis in fact, he works damn hard and the Australian people are justifiably impressed.
Mr Howard supported the Crown FACT
Mr Rudd does not support the Crown FACT.
Mr Rudd asked people to elect him because he had ideas for our future yet as soon as he gets in hold this silly 2020 talk-fest with the predictable left-wing Political Correct dickheads to give him some ideas.
The media NEVER supported Mr Howard (with the exception of some writers for the Australian and Mr Andrew Bolt) FACT
Calling Mr Howard a "little worn" tells me you are about 24 and go to uni?
One other thing Mr Rudd made an oath to our Sovereign and has broken it as soon as he could. Who would trust an oath breaker?
I'm not going to argue the point anymore Mr Byers, because its irrelevent. Howard and his legacy are destroyed, his party on the verge of self annihilation, and Rudd is showing himself to be hard working and thus far his endeavours have been fruitful despite wildspread criticism beforehand.
There can be no more hideous of a comparison as that between a decades long prime minister and one who hasn't even left his egg shell. All we can say is that it is far yet to be seen whether Rudd will make a better or worse PM than Howard.
ISTR (in response to David Byers'comment about Rudd swearing allegiance to Her Maj') that, in actual fact, he swore an oath written during the Keating era that effectively removed all references to Her Majesty. I've looked it up and the oath of allegiance he swore appears to be:
"I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the prime minister, so help me God,"
No reference to the Sovereign there...
Commonwealth Monarchist, you are wrong - Mr Rudd did make an Oath to the Sovereign as ALL members of Parliament MUST do so on being elected and when they are re-elected, that is in the Australian Constitution. You are thinking about the ministerial Oath yes that has no reference to the Sovereign.
Post a Comment