General News Australian PM reintroduces feudal titles

Well then... that sounds interesting.

 

Why? Why? Why? We've got enough of that nonsense in the UK with Lords, Ladies, Viscounts, Earls, Sirs and Dames. In many cases the titles are totally undeserved. For goodness sake, we knighted (Sir) Fred Goodwin for services to banking a few years before he crashed the Royal Bank of Scotland group and the UK economy with it, and (Sir) Jimmy Savile who was found to be the countries worst ever pedophile.

 

Sounds a bit like the Order of Canada. Completely pointless if you ask me.

 

Why does that have to be unconstitutional in the US? I want a Duchess of California. She needs to be a stuck up entitled valley girl we all love to hate, so that this state is united in at least one thing.

 

*gags*

I'd have all these noble sorts working in the fields, picking beans in the hot sun at minimum wage.

Kings, Queens and such...just a way to further classism and inequality. Off with their heads! Storm the palace! Seize their Mercedes! Let the poor workers have their due!

 

Tony abbott: taking us back to the fifties slowly but surely. This is why i dont vote.

 

Well the Earl of Cardigan in the UK works as a driver and is technically broke if that fits your description

Speaking of Australia, i recently read that the Mexican Imperial Family is exiled and residing down under.

My personal opinion, titles are nice but the perks are overrated. I don't think it needs to be abolished as it shows a certain piece of history.

I have a lot princes as friends back in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and the formality is not so fun lol

 

Hey why not, now you can give random celebrities knighthoods .

To be honest some deserve it I will say that.

You really can't complain when us Brits have to put up with it more and more

 

Saying you don't vote because you can't solve problems is exactly the reason said problems don't get solved. Voting is one of the rights in a Democratic society that should be used by everyone, because if you don't vote, you shouldn't get to complain when things go sour.

 

I agree that is very stupid. :/

 

Your guy sounds worse than Stephen Harper....
Seriously,get rid of him.

 

But you've already got Paris Hilton!

 

Sorry, but thats one of my biggest pet peeves when people tell me i have no right to complain. I pay my taxes and i contribute to society just like everyone else (and more than some people, believe me). I just dont see why i should, compulsary voting skews everything but thats another story. I know you live in the US so i dont know if youre aware of whats gone on in australia, but i do my own research and i refuse to give any support to people that are morally bankrupt, and dont represent me in the slightest. Its my right NOT to vote.

 

:roflmao:

 

As someone who pays more than his fair share here in the states, opting not to vote is simply taking it lying down. At least with a vote you have the opportunity to participate in the process that can change things you feel are wrong. Heck, here in the US, a vast chunk of the nation thinks they actually get to vote for the president. Explaining the Electoral College process is a huge eye opener for most of us. In some cases, our votes honestly don't count. At least you and I have our respective choice however dubious they might be. But there are more than a few countries that get no say at all. Using our voice helps reinforce that we care as people not to be treated like cattle when decisions are made. (Thought to be wholeheartedly honest, I don't feel my vote counts for two piles of dog poo most elections.) But that doesn't stop me from taking a few minutes and contributing to the process that so many people have fought for.

Eh, she'd have to be from NorCal or SoCal. That alienates half the population automatically. We can't make up our minds about anything... But I like the Valley Girl idea... it's classy in a snobby kinda way..

 

There's only one true Dame in Australia, and thats Dame Edna Etheridge.
If we get a Sir Hugh Jackman or a Dame Nicole Kidman, I'm leaving...

 

To the conversation about voting, I've always found this quote (generally attributed to Joseph Stalin) as an interesting thought:

" It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "

I find feudal titles to be kind of silly. However, after reading this and becoming tempted, I'm going to correct somebody when they refer to me as "sir", and demand I be called The Magnificently Awesome Radical Mega Super Ultra One instead.

 

While not quite the same as a knighthood, you can be an Admiral in the Nebraska Navy.

Nebraska Admiral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

To be fair, the most egalitarian societies in the world - Sweden, Norway and Denmark - all have monarchies. They may be effectively useless, or relics of a bygone era, but they do not appear detrimental to a nation's prosperity or economic success, unless they are absolute rulers, similar to what France had until the monarchy there was overthrown (the UK, on the other hand, has limited the power of its monarch for hundreds of years, even well before WW2), or what Saudi Arabia has now. Presidential republics are more democratic in the sense that you are electing your head of state* (whereas ours is already predetermined by whoever is next on the throne), but beyond that - not really.. the most democratic country in the world is apparently Norway, according to the Democracy Index.

The above isn't to imply that having a constitutional monarchy is responsible for a nation's equality or prosperity, but it is certainly not detrimental to it either.

(kind of went of on a tangent there - I really couldn't care less about the monarchy and whether we keep it or abolish it - but people make a far bigger deal about it than is necessary - well, a minority do - most people are actually in favour of keeping it)

*It isn't even as clear-cut as that, as Hyaline mentioned with the Electoral College (WTF is up with that btw?).