Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
The heirs to the “Australian throne”, the next King Charles and first Queen Camilla, make an official tour of their Australian dominions next year. Barry Everingham wonders how long that situation may pertain.
Australia's next King and Queen.
The next King and Queen of Australia will make a down under tour next year as part of the celebrations to mark the Australian head of state’s Diamond Jubilee.
According to Buckingham Palace, all the current and relevant royals – relevant royals? Now there’s an oxymoron – will head off around the Commonwealth to fly the royal standard on behalf of the 85 year-old Queen Elizabeth.
Now it’s important we see our next head of state and his former mistress — whom he made an honest woman by at last marrying her after their years of cheating behind the back of the gorgeous Princess Diana.
We should be eternally grateful to the serial telephone hackers of the Murdoch yellow press, who recorded some hot late night phone sex the adulterous couple were having — and then shared it with everyone by making it available on a 1800 system.
The tacky chit chat was memorable for one wish our next king had for his paramour.
In a voice dripping with passion and longing he admitted he wanted to be our next queen’s tampon so he could be – wait for it – “inside her”!
Heady stuff and really graphic filth.
Now under our current constitution – we will have no choice – no choice whatsoever but to accept this pair of misfits as our next monarchs.
Professor David Flint maintains the canard that Camilla Parker Bowles will never be Charles’ queen —she’s to be a “princess consort” of the king’s, he claims.
That piece of bullshit, which Flint bought hook line and sinker, was released by the palace to appease the millions of Diana lovers who were sickened and appalled at the thought of their beloved icon’s nemesis achieving the highest royal honour available.
Some history here which might help.
Princes Charles’ great-uncle, the Duke of Windsor, (the former Prince of Wales and later King Edward V111) shocked the royal family and the world when, in the mid 1930’s, he met, fell in love with, and renounced his throne, to marry his then mistress, Mrs Wallis Warfield Simpson, a twice divorced American woman.
The royal family, the then Government of the UK and all the then Empire Governments, including our own, came down like a ton of bricks on the couple, traduced their reputations and then quite illegally denied the new Duchess of Windsor, as Mrs Simpson became when the couple married in France, the title of “Her Royal Highness”.
Even now, the mention of the Windsors sends chills down the spines of the royals (royal family and spine — sorry, another oxymoron).
Wallis and Edward were denied the crown of England, but in no time at all they become the undoubted monarchs of international café society and the most sought after couple in the society world.
Now back to our next King and Queen.
Charles has a myriad of titles, his principal one being Prince of Wales.
That’s how the world knew Diana — she was the Princess of Wales because she took that title when marrying Charles, his principal title.
No Duchess of Cornwall nonsense for her.
Camilla on the other hand came to the royal marriage bed with baggage — lots of it.
The royals, still reeling from the opprobrium heaped on them by Diana lovers following the disgraceful infighting surrounding her funeral, had no intention of revisiting the Windsor saga — so another legal (Cornwall) title, with the styling of “Her Royal Highness” was dredged up and the couple were, at last, legally joined.
When Charles becomes King, his wife will be his Queen — he’s said as much himself; she won’t be the Princess Consort — that title simply doesn’t exist, and I’m told by Constitutional experts that – for that to be legal – an Act of Parliament would be needed and no sane Government would waste time, energy, or resources to even consider it.
So, we will at last see this extraordinary couple who tore up the royal rule book and managed to survive.
The question begging an answer is — will we really get them as our monarchs and, if so, how long will the status quo be maintained?
12 Comments
It is absolutely vital that some one in this Labor government has enough intelligence to start a process now that will see Australia automatically become a Republic at the end of the Queens reign.
It is patently obvious that ordinary Australians do not want Prince Charles as our next HoS and King, and certainly not Camilla as our next Queen.
Worse still, out mainstream media are generally so biased towards the monarchy, they themselves have not yet grasped that Australians will reject this couple in no uncertain terms.
If a process is started before the Prince arrives it will save him untold embarrassment, and he will be saved from unnecessary insults that are sure to follow.
And so the soap opera continues. To an outsider this whole mess would be viewed as some comedy, but alas it’s not.
Barry asks, “The question begging an answer is — will we really get them as our monarchs and, if so, how long will the status quo be maintained?”
He knows the answer but hates it.
YES, “we will really get them” and they’ll be there till Charles dies.
Enjoy the ride, Barry … and Len … and Drew … and all the frustrated republican royal haters.
Colin—obviously you could not care less that Charles will be embarrassed and insulted until he does die, if he becomes King of Australia, not necessarily by Republicans but by ordinary Australians. My money says he will be the straw that breaks the camels back, but I don’t think monarchists can see this. He is a blessing in disguise for Republicans.:)
You must be joking Barry. Thank the phone hackers? Do you honestly believe that unsavoury yet normal sexual perversion in speech or deed only happened in Charles’ era? So the lovely Dianna is allowed to root around. Get a grip Barry. Fair dinkum, I thought Independant Australia was a bit better than this tabloid trashy effort.
Kilgore—are you trying to defend Charles’ behavior. He carried on with his married mistress from the very first night of the royal wedding. Dianna did not stray until long after they were married after it became obvious Charles had no intention of changing his ways. Of course it was a long held belief that male royals were some how entitled to ” a bit on the side” . If Peter Hollingsworth was forced to resign as GG because of his previous knowledge of sexual abuse, give me one good reason why Australians should accept this philander as our HoS and King, along with his cheating wife as our Queen.
Len, dream on about your “blessing in disguise” in the form of King Charles (or whatever name he adopts). You have no say whatsoever in whether he will be our king other than by referendum to alter the constitution and there’s no chance of that.
So it only matters how you and your fellow republicans behave. If you really want to hurt your cause fatally, then you only have to behave as you indicate you might (and pretty much as Barry has written, and illustrated, in this article) and the general revulsion at your attitude will seal, in the general public’s affections, the monarchy as the enduring institution it already is.
Colin, please take your sneering over to the Menzies House website – or anywhere else apart from here.
Colin–obviously you have a set of double standards as well. Typical of the Pommy establishment that makes rules to suit their own warped values.
The simple fact is the Australian media highlighted the situation with Peter Hollingsworth and were responsible for whipping up a well deserved frenzy to ensure he did the right and resign. If the Australian media does not take a stand against a our future cheating King and his cheating Queen then they themselves have a lot to answer for. It will be the same Australian people that saw the end of Peter Hollingsworth that will see the end of the Australian monarchy. The very fact monarchists are supporting this insipid situation shows were they stand on the issue and the Australian people will not have a bar of it.
Furthermore Colin— you seem to be overlooking the fact that it was the Queen’s own representative that the Australian people got rid of.
Len Liddelow- I am not defending Charles, I am ridiculing the notion that the article seems to be espousing that Charles is some kind of maverick and his dear departed was some kind of saint. Not to mention the fact of Barry saying we should applaud the minions of Murdoch as they rape the statute books for their commercial ends. Humans are humans. Lust and all the other foibles are not restricted to the great unwashed.
The future Queen is looking particularly radiant in this photo, let us take action now so that we never have to suffer under her rule. The faster Australia faces up to its responsibilities as a mature nation ruled by itself the better off we will be.