Looks like they don't have it now...
The family crest:

Really confused tbh .I think I will contact for clarity.

The lunk is to a directory. Not sure it contains all the RWs.

It's telling, in relation to Australia, that the most ridiculed act of the most pro-Monarchy PM in recent Australian history (Tony Abbott), was to re-introduce "knights" and "dames" (complete with honorific "Sir" and "Dame" modes of expected address--in modern-day Australia!!! ) to the panoply of otherwise laudable worthy-citizen awards generally announced in the run-up to Australia Day.

Worse yet, Abbott awarded one to Prince Philip, who had been famously quoted asking, in some previous visit, whether Australian Aboriginals "still chucked spears at one another?"

Abbott embodied the Australian "cultural cringe" (a metaphorical tug of the forelock towards Old Blighty) at its embarrassing worst.

Well we will have to agree to disagree, I think its an integral part of Britain, and its culture, a country that turns its back on its history does so at its peril. Thankfully most of people still see that today, history is very important.

Plus the Queen has been an excellent ambassador for Britain who is detached and politically unbiased, and apart from erasing Britain's living history by getting rid of her, what would we replace the her with as head of state? a politically biased and potentially corrupt politician?


I don't see a problem with the awards, again its British culture and tradition. Granted some do receive them that don't really deserve them, but there are also some very deserving cases too, in recognising people that have done great work for charities.

Most excellent post in fact!

I don’t have much common ground with you Paul on this thread, but this is a good post, particularly the second paragraph. I had always thought that once the Queen is gone they should all go but I can’t see that there is an obviously better replacement.

I do think bats was referring to the names of the honours (the ‘BE’) rather than their existence. Although any system that has rushed the PM’s brother into the HoL to brush disagreements under the carpet needs some serious looking at.

There shoukd be awards but call them something that doesn't hark back to the British Empire and associated exploitation of the people. The Order of British Excellence has been suggested. Benajamin Zephaniah turned down an OBE "I get angry when I hear that word 'empire'; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds me of thousands of years of brutality, it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalized.," The honours system, like the monarchy, needs modernising. Y

Is there any need for a replacement? Why even have a nominal head of state?

I'm trying to think, who is the head of state of Switzerland, of Chile, of Ethiopia, of Sweden? I don't know and I suppose that's because it's not important. If a country doesn't have a head of state then they might not have anyone to send to various festivals of pomposity. I suppose that's a shame if you like tessellated uniforms but then you could go to drag clubs instead. What would be lost isn't obvious to me.

Nothing would be lost.

The history is there to be examined, studied and analyzed.

The Queen has nothing to gain from political bias which is the ultimate bias in itself. She’s “looked after” who ever in is in power. Then she dies and the next unelected person takes over.

Britain’s history whilst bold and brash attracts and is growing more than its fair share of scrutiny. Predating parliament the monarchy has very little to be proud of. Of course none of this is Liz’s fault and she may be an ok human being but really where is “the monarchy” headed. Is it to just sit there forever? Does she think one day she’ll wrest power back or is she simply not able to do anything else with her time?

The Vatican and Pope make more since than the lunacy of the monarchy.

The Queen is head of the Church of England .

The Church of England makes no sense at all.

I can see the sense of having a non political non elected head of state and Brenda has done that well but Charles has opinions which he opines. H and M notwithstanding the
monarchy needs to be trimmed, modernised blah blah blah

None of them do .

Yet kowtowing to a 'Royal Family' does?

Oh, bullshit.

Her fingerprints were all over John Kerr (the Australian G-G)'s dismissal of Gough Whitlam's Labor government in Australia in 1975.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...eased/12452616

When the letters were released on Tuesday morning, almost nobody was as excited to read them as historian Jenny Hocking, who has been trying to get access to the letters since 2016.
She said, upon first impression, the nature of the conversations between Sir John and Buckingham Palace were "concerning".

"A head of a constitutional monarchy must at all times remain politically neutral, and must remain above the politics of the day," Professor Hocking said.

"The really startling thing about these letters is the extent to which the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, is communicating with the Queen about exactly those issues — about political matters that are happening in Australia at the time, about options he may face."

"The Queen, in response, is engaging with that level of conversation at a very political level."

"You could not get more political than the crisis in the Senate that the government faced, and the eventual dismissal without warning of the elected government."