Can you believe that news stories, in 2013, are still promoting stories about royalty? How dumb and peasant-like does the media think the general population of Australia is? Even though we are still technically a so called constitutional monarchy, we really govern ourselves, without any assistance from Queen Elizabeth 2 or England. It was only because the options given to the Australian public, during the republic referendum, were so limited, that the majority still voted to keep Australia as a constitutional monarchy. We were the laughing stock of the world years ago. Countries, like America had fought a war with England, to get rid of their condescending monarchical form of government. All Australians had to do was vote it out of power—and they couldn’t even get that simple exercise right.


Unfortunately, Australia has a great number of British immigrants, who are too dumb to realise that the monarchy was useless. They immigrate to Australia—still brainwashed by the British educational system which never points out that England was severely hampered, over the centuries by various monarch. And they still pledge their allegiance to the monarch. On top of that, we have so many migrants that didn’t really care or understand the historical importance of the referendum and just voted to keep the government structure the way it was. How PATHETIC!!


We effectively govern ourselves. We invent our own laws, which are unique to Australia, to deal with problems we have here. We certainly don’t need the condescending approval of some monarch on the other side of the world. We are not a colony of England anymore. Unfortunately, a few unimaginative politicians still travel to England, to copy some of their laws and to bring them back to Australia. But, we do develop ideas here, in this country and mould them into new laws. We even set the trend for the rest of the world on some issues.


It is only because a minority of stubborn people believe God appoints the King or Queen to rule over us, on Earth, that we are still stuck with the useless convention of Monarchs. And, furthermore, because we were once a penal colony of England, we are also stuck with useless Governor-Generals and State Governors. Originally, in Australia’s colonial days, the governor represented the authority of the monarch in the colony. They carried out tasks ordered by the monarch, back in England. Yet, we haven’t thrown out these useless appendages of colonial days. The Premier of each state should be the highest and only politician that should officiate at events, at a state level. To keep the state Governors and Governor-General is an insult to the intelligence of modern Australians. To reiterate—we are no longer a small colony of England and we don’t need a governor. We have a state parliament, which is familiar with the economics of New South Wales and can govern it accordingly. The governor plays no part in the decision making, or political debate and therefore is superfluous in our modern society.


 At a federal level, it should be the Prime Minister that officiates at all official federal events and who should have opened the Sydney Opera house in 1973. That was another great big joke. We built an opera house (and concert hall) that was so magnificent, yet we were too afraid to allow it to be officially opened by our elected prime minister. After all, the people of New South Wales paid for it and built it. The people of the world must have thought that Australia was still just an immature little colony of England, when they saw events like that on the news.


Even in England itself, it has a parliament which debates political topics and formulates new laws. The monarchy does not dare challenge the power of the parliament. The monarchy simply rubber stamps all new legislation. Countries in this century and the last, realised that giving power to one individual really no longer worked effectively. Instead, it was better to delegate such power to experts and committees. Now days, the prime minister and the members of the cabinet debate ideas and formulate policies, based on what is economical for the country. They don’t waste money on useless crusades to save Jerusalem, from the Muslims, anymore. This was one of the useless ideas that monarchies had centuries ago. Many were influenced heavily by religious ideas by the Catholics and Protestants. Another great disadvantage of monarchies centuries ago was that they plunged countries into foreign wars with other monarchical countries. England, France Germany and Russia were forever battling each other for new lands and wealth, throughout European history. Each thought God was on their side and that they were entitled to more land and wealth, at the expense of another country.


Getting back to today’s pathetic adulation of the monarchy, it is so annoying that big, happy stories are still promoted about the English monarchy. A sizable percentage of the Australian population don’t give a dam about them, or any other European monarchy, for that matter. It is so useless and pathetic watching them appear at special events and seeing how the so called “commoners” behave. It is hard to believe that the ordinary population still allow that condescending term to be used, to describe the majority of the British and Australian population. On that one issue, we should have dumped the monarchy long ago. Really, people don’t still believe that a God appoints these people to rule over us. In the past, there were good and bad monarchs. It just depended on the individual. Do they really expect us to admire Henry VIII, despite the fact he had some of his wives murdered, just so that he could officially remarry another. He wanted an heir and some of his wives were sterile. This is why we don’t give absolute power to anyone, especially the power of life and death, over the citizenry. It can be too easily abused by ruthless and callous monarchs.


We really don’t need to parade past the monarch, or to have them officially open new buildings, like the Sydney Opera House or the 2000 Sydney Olympic games. We have our own elected politicians to perform these duties. Royalty is just traditional snobbery which we shouldn’t put up with any longer. They also try to make the British royal family more palatable by promoting the various weddings, christenings and other events, at which there is a big celebration. It still amazes one to see mobs of the population (”commoners” in monarchical terminology) turn out and get excited by the appearance of any member of the British royal family.


It is especially decadent and pathetic, to see females drool and dream of Prince Harry, when he comes to Australia. Do they really think he will pick one of them as his bride and they will be catapulted from obscurity to Princess Status? This is the idea the media uses to whip up enthusiasm for the monarchy still, in Australia. They bore us with tedious details about how the royals dress and what their itinerary will be, whilst they tour the country. The media are really decadent and stupid. A large percentage of the population don’t care about the royals. They don’t even consider them to be a real news story. The details about their tours are moronic and only serve to hypnotise the population into some sort of happy state of euphoria. In fact, royal promoters are trying to whip up enthusiasm, because they know it is waning and people in this modern era don’t “love” their monarchs anymore.


Promoters of royalty, these days try to market royals like they were pop stars. They have especially tried to promote Harry Windsor (“Prince Harry”), as a handsome, eligible bachelor, to the “Kingdom’s” (sic) eligible females, as their Prince Charming, from some fairytale. It is as if they were selling a fairytale to these naïve females. How ridiculous! There is only one of him and so many of them. So many of them are going to end up disappointed when he finally chooses a bride. And whilst you can’t describe Harry as ugly, he certainly isn’t the most handsome guy in the world. All the royal trappings and media attention just make him seem more spectacular. There are a whole host of celebrities, across the world that females could drool over. And more realistically, they could look closer to home for a potential boyfriend.


But the media still tries to paint a picture resembling a Cinderella story for females. They say here is Prince Harry, looking around the world for his future Princess Bride. It’s hard to believe that they think the masses are that brain-washed and interested in Harry, all the time. Surely the population have their real lives to live! Inevitably, Harry will choose a female—probably a British citizen, from at least the so called upper middle class. This is to satisfy demands of decorum and status. After all, he would hardly marry someone from extremely low status in British. Yet the majority of Britons are not part of the upper middle class, as was Diana Spencer (first wife of Prince Charles).


So why do they still line the streets and cheer whenever a royal carriage or motorcade goes by? What does royalty do that benefits the majority of British society. The royals are really just an enormous tax burden on the ordinary British citizen. It is hard to see why they tolerate such snobbery from the royal class and the upper class of England, when these snobs and royal commentators, still refer to the majority of the British population as–“commoners”. The condescension, distain and snobbery are so apparent. You don’t hear it all the time. It just slips out now and then when so called royal commentators have to describe the non-royal section of society. They don’t use the term British citizen. Instead they just can’t help denigrating the population by reminding them that they aren’t special like the royals and other associated titled families of England.


Perhaps what the British need is a good dose of Australian apathy and this would help to make them come down to earth and look upon royalty, as just a useless, decadent invention without much use in today’s world. After all, we have movie stars and pop stars to idolise in the modern world. They are far more entertaining and interesting than the royal family and its many other pretentiously titled gentry. So why bother with the royals?


When Princess Diana ( Diana Spencer) was alive, the media tried to promote her as some sort of elected monarch. They invented and promoted the title of:–“The people’s princess”. Who really needed her to visit hospitals and charities? Children get more out of the Starlight Foundation’s efforts, than anything from one of her visits. Also, it was a ploy by feminists to promote her because she was a woman and had married into royalty and status. Here in Australia, magazines like the Women’s Weekly heavily promote any woman that rises to a powerful status in society.  Plenty of non-royals work diligently for charities, but they don’t get such constant attention as she did. It was just ridiculous the amount of media adulation that they gave her. Truly, there were a great number of people who couldn’t have cared less about her and the fact she married Prince Charles, way back in the 1980s. And look at how that royal marriage turned out. We didn’t know at the time, but Prince Charles had picked Diana as his second choice because he couldn’t marry his first choice–Camellia, since she was already married to someone else. The whole marriage became a sham. It was rumoured that Prince Charles kept in contact with Camellia. Diana was trapped in a loveless marriage and had two children to this useless royal. Her life was completely changed and in the end resulted in her premature death in a car accident. Prince Charles didn’t have her beheaded, but he certainly stuffed up her life. Diana could have married a non royal and had a proper marriage. Instead, she was mesmerised by this deceptive, manipulating buffoon, who thought he could use her to shield his real love affair with Camellia. Only years after Diana’s death, did he finally marry his real true love. Once again, royalty manipulated the ordinary citizen, Diana, to benefit themselves. Charles was getting into his thirties and it was thought he should marry someone. He could still carry on a secret love affair with the one he truly loved and who was a married woman.


So why should we be impressed by royalty, if this is how they treat citizens. Once again, it is the old condescension and expectation that the ordinary citizen should obey the will of the royals without any questions, just so a royal person can benefit. And what is wrong with the royal family? All of their marriages have ended in divorce.


The general population have more important issues to worry about. The media seem to think stories about royalty are going to make everyone happy and make people feel better. They don’t! There is still unemployment in England; America; Europe and Australia. There are problems with terrorism; the climate; crime and disease.


The abnormal amount of enthusiasm that the media generates about royalty is quite weird. Do they think we are all a bunch of rural peasants ready to cheer the King/Queen and rally to defend the kingdom? (sic). The birth of a royal baby and its subsequent christening just isn’t really that important and interesting in this day and age. We aren’t dumb, uneducated “townsfolk” anymore—you moronic media moguls!! So stop treating us as if democracy; the French revolution and elected parliamentary government don’t exist. We really couldn’t care less about the monarchy. And you can stick that on your front page with a big banner headline!