UK monarchy set to change ‘dramatically’ after Queen’s Jubilee

[ozimoron]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You mentioned the palace, not me.

More deflection, you denied the collusion, I linked to show that it was true.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

More deflection, you denied the collusion, I linked to show that it was true.

You linked an allegation but there was no proof. There are conspiracy stories, as ever, but none conclusively prove collusion, which is a word used rather carelessly here. Whitlam led a government that was effectively powerless, so Australia was rudderless until Whitlam went, which he wouldn't do voluntarily.  

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You linked an allegation but there was no proof. There are conspiracy stories, as ever, but none conclusively prove collusion, which is a word used rather carelessly here. Whitlam led a government that was effectively powerless, so Australia was rudderless until Whitlam went, which he wouldn't do voluntarily.  

The Guardian does not print false allegations. It verifies stories before they go to press. In 40 years they have never retracted it nor has it been refuted. If you have better info you haven't bothered to link it. Instead you have just used the throwaway "There is no proof"

 

The dismissal of Whitlam was devised in secrecy, in collusion with others, implemented by surprise and planned so that no recourse would undo it.

 

One important gap that the book fills is to establish fairly conclusively that Kerr forewarned Fraser of the pending dismissal in a phone call. Kerr always denied having warned Fraser, but the weight of evidence is against him here.

 

https://www.hca.westernsydney.edu.au/gmjau/?book-reviews=the-dismissal-in-the-queens-name

 

Far from endorsing Kerr’s actions (let alone conspiring in them), Palace interviewees regarded Kerr as having acted prematurely; after the dismissal, indeed, the Palace was keen for his early departure from the post.

 

Kerr remained obsessed about his own job security, and this was his main explanation for ignoring the Crown’s duty to warn the chief minister.

 

Only a fool or a sophist could deny that such questions presaged the imminent course of events.

 

https://insidestory.org.au/some-of-the-things-we-werent-meant-to-know-about-the-dismissal/

[sawadee1947]

12 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Have to agree. After Harry and Meghan's antics I would favor the dissolution of the monarchy after the Queen passes.  Prince Charles is ruined due to the almost certainly misleading allegations that a member of the RF was concerned about Archie's possible skin color, what with one parent being the whitest black person ever and the other a virtual albino. Ditto for Wills and Kate. 

 I would favor all land and houses they own to be used for homing homeless native people who have been dicriminated against. With retired service members given priority. Some good can come from the sad end to a British Institution.

 Thanks Harry and Megs.

 

Read my post. Agreed

[sawadee1947]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:04 AM, hotchilli said:

Charlie who'd rather talk to plants, not a chance in hell.

Andrew.. cough.

Edward.. where is he now?

Anne... possibly.

Take anyone from the street. Higher IQ definetely

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Take anyone from the street. Higher IQ definetely

Higher IQ ..... definetely.....lol

[Scott]

Argumentative posts and replies reported and removed.