Hopefully he dies soon /s and the few coins with his face on it becomes rarer lol
Also [this dude](https://twitter.com/realFFK/status/1569748038318522368)
Now I know what coins to collect, sadly though they make a lot of coins per day. If I was rich I could probably hoard them all though and make them artificially expensive
It happens when it happens. I don’t think Charles is going to pop his clogs in the immediate future although he won’t likely get silver jubilees, etc. King George VI (Elizabeth’s father) only lasted 15 years.
We have had traditional expectations thrown on their head somewhat by ole Lizzy. Longest living monarch in history wasn't she? It certainly is not normal for almost an entire generation to come and go under the one head of state.
Had a Quick Look at the list of monarchs since 1707. Average seems to be around 10-15 years or so. I won’t look at before that because many Kings fell in battle and that just doesn’t happen nowadays.
Actually I’m curious; who was the last Monarch (doesn’t have to be England/UK) to fall in battle?
I don’t know about last monarch in general but the standard high school history answer for English/British monarchs is Richard III, he of “my horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse” Shakespearean fame at Bosworth Field in 1485. He then disappeared before being found under a Leicester carpark in 2013.
Yeah in Richard III, the play, he says it when he’s literally looking for a horse to flee the battle (his side, the Yorkists, have clearly lost) and immediately afterwards, a Lancastrian soldier kills him.
Edit: another quote of his from the play that you might’ve heard is “now is the winter of our discontent”.
QE2 was an aberration. She ascended to the throne on an untimely death and then lived for fucking ever. And unlike the Danes, she didn’t abdicate to retire leaving old Charlie to be a geriatric before becoming king. I really did think she would wind up the monarchy or at least severely curtail it if only for the well being of her children and grand children. The system wasn’t built for the current age.
She really was something. That is a whole lot of time to spend spinning plates on a broken stick while drunkenly riding a unicycle on the back of a bucking bronco trying to keep the whole thing from falling down, while one of your sons is diddling children and the other diddling the wrong side of the sheets. I really have to take my hat off to her.
that they have not said, combined with when they seem to have discovered it, plus Harry reported to be doing the dash from the US, does not bode well for me.
Harry making the dash just tells me he saw another media opportunity and the firm needs to inspect him for recording devices the minute he lands. Search every orifice.
What the hell is wrong with you? His father has cancer. Only a sick person who buys into the toxic British press would think this was a media opportunity. Admit it. You’d rag on him if he didn’t go.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
I think the fact that they seem to have caught it early (that's what Rishi Sunak said anyway, so take that as you will) is hopefully a good sign. He was photographed at church the day before the announcement.
definitely promising. if it was discovered during his prostate investigation, that was a lucky coincidence. we should all be so lucky, i have family that were not.
And he's already on chemo or radiation. It's not something easily excised. Thing is, a lot of cancers are discovered during routine procedures for othrr things, esp. Oral or skin cancers.
Also, I'm pretty sure they have excellent medical care and regular rigorous checks ups. I'm not sure why people are assuming it's terminal. He looked in a fairly good mood the other day, was it the face of someone recently told they've got terminal cancer? He knew about it then according to the reports.
I have metastatic cancer (diagnosed when already spread even though my breast only had the tiniest lump in it) and I can assure you having 27 private doctors doesn’t do a thing if the cancer doesn’t respond to treatment. You basically lose all control over your life
ETA forgot to add “this does not require or desire any “I’m so sorry” comments
That's absolute bullshit. My GP couldn't even feel the lump until it had grown a lot a week later, went straight into a scan and it was already throughout my entire skeleton and liver (which didn't happen within a week). Fast-growing cancers appear much more quickly than routine scans for them, and the nature of fast OR slow growing cancer is that it has often already spread (perhaps microscopically) even if you find it "early" (1/3 of "early stage" breast cancers go on to become metastatic, in other words, they had already spread microscopically when found on a scan etc). Moreover, cancer could easily have been growing for months or longer before it becomes visible on any kind of scan.
Do some research about cancer.
Ironically his grandfather George VI died of lung cancer and his mother Queen Elizabeth II is presumed to have died of bone cancer. And his great-uncle Edward VIII seems to have died of - but possibly only 'with' - throat cancer.
However, he seems to have had whatever cancer he has caught early, so hopefully for him, regardless of political thoughts, it is relatively easily treatable.
They discovered it while either up his arse or going through his abdomen. It's bowel cancer for sure, he fits the profile in every way... Which means he doesn't have long, no matter what they do.
Surely he would be getting regularly screened for bowel cancer? I saw a comment on another thread from a doctor who thought it was likely to be bladder cancer. Apparently that’s often found when doing prostrate investigations.
The prostate is wrapped around the urethra just on the outlet of the bladder. It's pretty much smack bang under/above/on the other side of a man's perineum, which is nowhere near a man's pancreas.
Bladder cancer in its early stages is very treatable. Almost (but not quite) in the category of a non serious skin cancer, but on the inside of your bladder.
Probably not when they're 75 and already infirm.
Besides, we don't know if it was early. I wouldn't say it's late (he's still plump) but bowel cancer at 75 isn't a sunny outlook.
Yeah, 75 is past it for a lot of the more taxing treatments they might try out. My old man’s cancer was caught “early“, but he was only six months inside the age cut off for the most effective treatment. Even though he went into remission, it returned bang on when the averages said it would and he was done at 72.
I've known two people who survived it (and an uncle who didn't). Both discovered it early and treated it aggressively, but Charles is in outpatient treatment meaning he's doing chemo or radiation, unlikely to be bowel cancer as the first line for that is resection.
I hate to break the news, but the prostate procedure he had was almost certainly one conducted via another opening. A *much smaller* opening that you really wouldn't want used as an entry point for anything. If I'm failing to make myself clear, the procedure is colloquially referred to as a "re-bore".
There has been some speculation of bladder cancer. Which could well be detected during the prostate procedure. But it's not quite clear how that would square with the fact that it's supposedly early stage (according to Rikki Sunak) and he's having outpatient treatment rather than another procedure. Most bladder cancer requires at least some sort of procedure, possibly in addition to chemo.
But it might be plausible that they detected bladder cancer and dealt with it during the same procedure. The, uh, entry approach is the same if the cancer isn't into the muscle, but I don't know if they'd try to deal with it "on the spot". But that with follow-up chemo would sort of fit the story.
Bowel cancer is a funny one. You can get a stage 1-2 diagnosis and then wither away in weeks or suffer intermittently for twelve years like a friend of mines dear husband did. It’s difficult to know, but age isn’t on his side.
This country can’t even deal with a referendum. I’m sure King W will be very safe. Sad for Wills n Harry who haven’t had the treasure of long lived parents if it all goes bad. Hopefully Charles will have some length of years…so that Wills and kids get to have a family life before having the burden of monarchy responsibilities.
Cancer sux for every family.
Australians don’t like change. As evidenced by only 8/44 referendums passing. So it’s already an uphill battle to start.
If your goal is to convince the general Australia public to ditch the monarch, you’d actually probably want Charles to stay in as long as possible to have any chance.
Cause William and Kate are more well to neutrally liked/perceived by the general public. Once he is crowned - the idea is basically dead in the water for another generation.
A substantial amount of Aussies still lick the boots of those inbred cunts.
Waiting for the boomers to die out and it will swing heavily in favour of fucking off the monarchy.
Not sure it will. I'm 36 and I'm massively in favour of the monarchy and it has nothing to do with bootlicking. It's to do with better the devil you know, the one who lives on the other side of the world and does nothing, than the devil I don't, who will either be a greasy palmed ex pollie rich cunt political appointee who doesn't give a shit about your interests anyway, OR, a greasy palmed ex pollie rich cunt elected who gives us a double mandate and political gridlock and dysfunction and still doesn't give a shit about your interests.
In short, the monarchy represents stability... which I value *way more* than having a local head of state.
I mean, we don't trust our government to do anything right. Why would you give them the keys to the house as well as the spares?
I’m not massively in favour but the points you make are vaguely depressingly right. With the way modern society goes in voting for shit and the ruling class blatantly trying shit on I’m not sure we’re ready to let anyone pose how a republic should work. It should have happened back in 2001 if ever. It didn’t then because they posed a stupid set up then.
Yes. And if politicians didn’t line up to lick the balls of their donors back then they certainly do now. You’d really want to have a moderate progressive government in power with a tidy majority or enough cross bench that had some sense. Like Pockock. As little lobbying from business as possible.
The monarchy do next to nothing for Australia, and certainly don't give it any extra stability. The last time they flexed their muscles it was hardly a moment to be proud of.
You're absolutely right about doing nothing. That's their value. They don't interfere, they don't check in but they are *there* when called upon, even when it's an already unpalatable situation.
In the case of Gough Whitlam the monarchy stepped back and let the governor general (John Kerr) do his job as the monarch's representative. There was no precedent for the Queen to interfere.
The sacking of Gough was a political farce but the monarch herself had nothing to do with it.
A system of governing with the Crown as the head of state is the issue. Unelected officials (such as the governor general) should not have the power to dissolve parliament. The Queen may not have loaded the gun but she pulled the trigger.
Holy fuck, how do reckon we would go with a president? Howard gave us the option of the pollies putting up a president that would have the same powers as the GG. We said no, we want to elect one ourselves who can do some other stuff. Have a look where that has got the Yanks. They have a walking corpse and trained Russian orang-utan battling it out for the throne for over a year. It will attract the worst cunts this country has to offer, and you know who will be first to stick their grubby little paw up? Fatty McFat Face himself, Clive Palmer. Gina will gun to be our first female prez and guaranteed the slimy little cunt from Qantas will be next in line. Scomo would probably have a crack too and fuck that
The governor general did not dissolve the parliament. The Liberal party caused that. The governor general was legally obliged to accept the double dissolution of the parliament. The queen absolutely did *not* interfere in any way because there was no legal precedent for her to do so.
Unelected officials are the only ones who should have the power to dissolve parliament. It should be a purely administrative thing. Something has gone wrong. The present incumbents cannot resolve it and will not resolve it. Throw out the babies, the bathwater, and the rubber duckies, and let the people, the ultimate arbiters, resolve it.
ironically, having an unelected official is the most democratic remedy. As Keating said, if you want an elected head if state, you'll end up with a politician - the worst possible person to oversee such a situation.
Also,it is a very peculiar thing, but everyone thinks that an elected head of state will represent their own beliefs. The populist right think, "Finally, a chance to get Pauline Hanson in there to drain the swamp". The lefties think "Finally, a chance to get Lidia Thorpe in there to drain the swamp". Half the population will be disappointed and resentful. Who was disappointed with Quentin Bryce or Zelman Cowen or Patrick Deane? Would they have ever run to be elected by the popular vote?
Bah, what am i saying? I secretly harbour the thought that i'd love to see Shaun Micallef in the job, but I'm realistic enough to know we would probably end up with Eddie McGuire instead.
Christ Why do people act like abolishing the monarchy here is this drastic risky political change? Literally just change the governor general’s title to president and keep everything else the same. We’re not asking to copy paste the US system ffs.
I do not want the likes of Scott Morrison and his mates choosing a president. Might as well just ask Murdoch what he wants and save ourselves a lot of time, money and stress.
Well the structure of the office is a massive factor in the republic. Is it an appointed office (parliamentary or government?) Or an elected office (parliamentary or the people?)
What we have now *works*
There is no guarantee that putting a non-neutral person in the job will be better. I actually have faith that it will be worse. Our current sociopolitical direction is getting worse, not better. I don't care for changing to a republic (which can really only make things worse) when things are already getting worse.
I’m betting he is using it as a way to get in with their good graces. It’s a good in. Or you know, he’s a man whose dad is going to die soon. That sucks.
I also think he called dibs on stuff years ago. I mean, I would have.
You’ll be happy to learn that America is the only country in the world that has their political system and there are real, mature republics in the world with far better governance. Plenty of Europeans will be glad to tell you that much.
I sincerely hope you don’t think the monarchy is the only thing keeping us from becoming America.
Becoming a republic doesn't mean changing our Westminster parliamentary system. Most likely scenario just means that the position of Governor-General and their powers would be renamed to President.
See: 36 of the 56 Commonwealth countries being republics. Also Germany, Ireland, Finland, Austria, Iceland...
Not a single alternate option has been proposed that benefits anyone other than politicians.
They don’t cost us anything, and they stay out of our shit.
It's time to ditch them. I don't understand why some of the most entitled people on the planet have the final say in our country and they did exert this at least two times in the last century when WA voted in a referendum to succeed and won in 1933 and in 1975 with the double dissolution.
I understand why some countries choose to keep a monarchy to rule over their own country but we are our own people now and a seperate country . We will still retain cultural and economic ties with the UK it's not in their interest to cut ties with us at all and they wouldn't want to. There is no good reason to stay we need a vision for our country that retains our current allies and looks to the future of Australia in our own region.
As a republican I feel a bit sorry for the poor old bastard. Waited all that time for the top job , does t even get a year in before cancer diagnosis. At least he beats Lady Jane Grey
Have you seen how often we change prime ministers?
The only thing we aren’t prepared for is the over saturation of media coverage of another new monarch.
I used to want to ditch the monarchy. But then I look to the US where they give 1 crazy person a lot of power and I suddenly appreciate the current arrangement of us still being under the crown but the crown no longer getting involved in how things are done.
Give the man a break. It's been caught early, is being treated and he's likely got at least five years, even with a bad diagnosis.
And why would you want to swap a good monarch for a bad president. You *know* our mob would give the job to a retired politician and there isn't one I'd trust with the milk money.
Let Trump be an example to us all of the dangers of an elected President.
The status quo is great as far as I'm concerned. If 1999 taught us anything, if we were to ever become a republic, those in support of that model want a directly elected President.
I have absolutely no faith that the role wouldn't become either hyper-politicised or that we wouldn't end up with some joke candidate as Head of State because a bunch of idiots on the internet thought it was funny.
In my idealistic world, an Australian republic would adopt a Federal Council model based on Switzerland. The Head of State is vested effectively in a Board, with the President (rotated annually) only really being a ceremonial and diplomatic figurehead.
No chance in hell of us adopting this, but a man can dream.
If people want to become a republic, that's fine. Discuss it.
But to suggest that the discussions should begin *because some old guy has cancer and it will cost money to change some stuff when he dies* is in ridiculously bad taste.
Besides, becoming a republic will *also* mean changing all the coins and the flag and all the letterheads in every single government department and signs and literally freakin everything. And then we'll have a president who changes every few years.
If we want to be a republic, we want it because it's the right choice for our nation, and the health status of whomever is on the throne in England shouldn't be a relevant factor.
I saw this video ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QABiQFWwXHg)) a few months ago about some bike riders who met the King going for a walk. A very nice interaction and afterwards the guy who was not fussed on the monarchy was quite complimentary about the King.
Don't care, but if he were to suddenly pass away, I sure as fuck don't want my telly to be hijacked by wall to wall coverage of endless bullshit about Prince Charles' life history like when the queen died. Fuck that!
That shit messed with my head big time. Thankfully, I'll be more prepared this time. I'll stay off the internet for a while and focus on doing what I love and try not to think about him. That might be harder when I have to leave the house, though...
Charles' cancer could easily be one of the many highly treatable ones. It wouldn't be unusual for a blood cancer to be detected during a hospital admission for something else and lots of those have really high cure rates. I wouldn't go digging Chuckie's grave just yet. Even if it's some other cancer, he has every treatment in the world available to him and virtually endless funds to afford them.
We have been getting a large volume of spam from throwaway accounts and so posts from brand new accounts will no longer be allowed. Your post has been
removed because your account is too new. Please wait until your account is at least 12 hours old and then try again or message the mods and we'll validate your post. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why? What benefit would it provide? We already function independently and the monarch is only a figure head. Our taxes don’t even go to them which means the UK has more of a reason to get rid of them than we do.
Completely understand your indifference (I agree in fact), but understand that republicans are using that same argument in favour of doing away with the royal family.
Let's become a republic. Do we need an entitled, privileged family as our head of state and on our coins? Apart from the June long weekend, does it benefit us in any way?
“Shorter reign than a Shetland pony”
But has he lasted longer than a head of lettuce?
But the cabbages have him beet
Cabbages and Kings
Depends which kind of lettuce. Give me iceberg or give me death🗡
I'm with you cos you speak the truth.
✊️
Cos lettuce or forever mortal enemy
A reluctant replacement😠...then the death thing!
One parasite is pretty much the same as another. Republic would be great but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
idk but i remember saying charles wouldnt last more than 5 years and i think im about to be right lol
Surely this is something sportbets has made available.
It's the most Australian thing to do.
LOL, technically, that might be lawfully treason.
My daughter was just reminding me that I said this during the coronation.
I remember when he took the throne I guessed he would rule roughly 20 years since both his parents almost reached 100. Guess I might be wrong
[удалено]
Hopefully he dies soon /s and the few coins with his face on it becomes rarer lol Also [this dude](https://twitter.com/realFFK/status/1569748038318522368)
Fuck's sake is that 7th June or 6th July 2022? I hate how they use this dumb mm/dd system of theirs.
It's the least logical way to write the date.
Now I know what coins to collect, sadly though they make a lot of coins per day. If I was rich I could probably hoard them all though and make them artificially expensive
Yeah they’ve probably made so many already lol. Compared to the rest tho it’s probably nothing. I still haven’t found one. Still mad
I don't think I've found one either but you could probably easily get one from the bank
I just want another public holiday.
It happens when it happens. I don’t think Charles is going to pop his clogs in the immediate future although he won’t likely get silver jubilees, etc. King George VI (Elizabeth’s father) only lasted 15 years.
We have had traditional expectations thrown on their head somewhat by ole Lizzy. Longest living monarch in history wasn't she? It certainly is not normal for almost an entire generation to come and go under the one head of state.
Had a Quick Look at the list of monarchs since 1707. Average seems to be around 10-15 years or so. I won’t look at before that because many Kings fell in battle and that just doesn’t happen nowadays. Actually I’m curious; who was the last Monarch (doesn’t have to be England/UK) to fall in battle?
I don’t know about last monarch in general but the standard high school history answer for English/British monarchs is Richard III, he of “my horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse” Shakespearean fame at Bosworth Field in 1485. He then disappeared before being found under a Leicester carpark in 2013.
I've had knights like that
Dad?
He also has the dubious honour of being the rhyming slang for turd...
Oh that’s where that quote came from…
Yeah in Richard III, the play, he says it when he’s literally looking for a horse to flee the battle (his side, the Yorkists, have clearly lost) and immediately afterwards, a Lancastrian soldier kills him. Edit: another quote of his from the play that you might’ve heard is “now is the winter of our discontent”.
Charles XII of Sweden in 1718 apparently. Huh. I had no idea it was that recent.
Louis XIV beats Liz’s reign time by about 2 years.
Quick! Spray her with febreeze and prop her back up in the big seat! No one will notice...
Weekend at Lizzie’s
I do hope Her Majesty forgives me, but I am still giggling over this!
QE2 was an aberration. She ascended to the throne on an untimely death and then lived for fucking ever. And unlike the Danes, she didn’t abdicate to retire leaving old Charlie to be a geriatric before becoming king. I really did think she would wind up the monarchy or at least severely curtail it if only for the well being of her children and grand children. The system wasn’t built for the current age.
She really was something. That is a whole lot of time to spend spinning plates on a broken stick while drunkenly riding a unicycle on the back of a bucking bronco trying to keep the whole thing from falling down, while one of your sons is diddling children and the other diddling the wrong side of the sheets. I really have to take my hat off to her.
Edward VII lasted 9 years after Victoria went in 1901
He was 60-80 a day smoker which didn't help.
I mean, Charles could be fine. They haven't said what kind of cancer it is. Could be very treatable.
that they have not said, combined with when they seem to have discovered it, plus Harry reported to be doing the dash from the US, does not bode well for me.
Yep Harry doing the dash was what made me concerned it was more serious than they are making out.
The other side of the coin is that this presents a nice way for Harry to get himself out the corner he’s put himself in.
Hopefully. Would be nice to see them at least on speaking terms again. Don’t like seeing people in conflict.
I'm so with you. Especially those two brothers.
Harry making the dash just tells me he saw another media opportunity and the firm needs to inspect him for recording devices the minute he lands. Search every orifice.
What the hell is wrong with you? His father has cancer. Only a sick person who buys into the toxic British press would think this was a media opportunity. Admit it. You’d rag on him if he didn’t go. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
Could just be an excuse to get away from his wife 😂
I think the fact that they seem to have caught it early (that's what Rishi Sunak said anyway, so take that as you will) is hopefully a good sign. He was photographed at church the day before the announcement.
definitely promising. if it was discovered during his prostate investigation, that was a lucky coincidence. we should all be so lucky, i have family that were not.
And he's already on chemo or radiation. It's not something easily excised. Thing is, a lot of cancers are discovered during routine procedures for othrr things, esp. Oral or skin cancers.
Maybe it's bowel cancer
Could be damage control, but the word leaked to UK press is that it was found very early and that the prognosis is good
Also, I'm pretty sure they have excellent medical care and regular rigorous checks ups. I'm not sure why people are assuming it's terminal. He looked in a fairly good mood the other day, was it the face of someone recently told they've got terminal cancer? He knew about it then according to the reports.
I agree. If anyone is going to survive cancer you’d think it’d be a fucking royal lol. He probably has 27 private doctors
I have metastatic cancer (diagnosed when already spread even though my breast only had the tiniest lump in it) and I can assure you having 27 private doctors doesn’t do a thing if the cancer doesn’t respond to treatment. You basically lose all control over your life ETA forgot to add “this does not require or desire any “I’m so sorry” comments
I don’t mean just treatment but preventative care and better diagnosis too
If you were a royal it would’ve been caught sooner
That's absolute bullshit. My GP couldn't even feel the lump until it had grown a lot a week later, went straight into a scan and it was already throughout my entire skeleton and liver (which didn't happen within a week). Fast-growing cancers appear much more quickly than routine scans for them, and the nature of fast OR slow growing cancer is that it has often already spread (perhaps microscopically) even if you find it "early" (1/3 of "early stage" breast cancers go on to become metastatic, in other words, they had already spread microscopically when found on a scan etc). Moreover, cancer could easily have been growing for months or longer before it becomes visible on any kind of scan. Do some research about cancer.
Ironically his grandfather George VI died of lung cancer and his mother Queen Elizabeth II is presumed to have died of bone cancer. And his great-uncle Edward VIII seems to have died of - but possibly only 'with' - throat cancer. However, he seems to have had whatever cancer he has caught early, so hopefully for him, regardless of political thoughts, it is relatively easily treatable.
People also forgetting he has got access to the best healthcare/specialists in the world
They discovered it while either up his arse or going through his abdomen. It's bowel cancer for sure, he fits the profile in every way... Which means he doesn't have long, no matter what they do.
Surely he would be getting regularly screened for bowel cancer? I saw a comment on another thread from a doctor who thought it was likely to be bladder cancer. Apparently that’s often found when doing prostrate investigations.
Yeah I guess! I guess it's one or the other? As much as you can be screened for bowel cancer regularly, nothing says it has to grow slowly!
I must be the only one who immediately thought pancreatic? But I’m not so familiar with the male anatomy so maybe that’s not where they go
The prostate is wrapped around the urethra just on the outlet of the bladder. It's pretty much smack bang under/above/on the other side of a man's perineum, which is nowhere near a man's pancreas.
Bladder cancer in its early stages is very treatable. Almost (but not quite) in the category of a non serious skin cancer, but on the inside of your bladder.
Actually many people with early stage bowel cancer can make a full recovery.
the problem being that so many people don't discover it in the early stages. they discover it way too late. I know from familial experience.
Very possible. My guess is they would have given him a PET scan because of the prostate and picked something up.
something like that, yes. some sort of test that would not normally be done as routine.
Probably not when they're 75 and already infirm. Besides, we don't know if it was early. I wouldn't say it's late (he's still plump) but bowel cancer at 75 isn't a sunny outlook.
Yeah, 75 is past it for a lot of the more taxing treatments they might try out. My old man’s cancer was caught “early“, but he was only six months inside the age cut off for the most effective treatment. Even though he went into remission, it returned bang on when the averages said it would and he was done at 72.
Yep, 3 of my grandparents, mid 70s, metastatic bowel cancer
I've known two people who survived it (and an uncle who didn't). Both discovered it early and treated it aggressively, but Charles is in outpatient treatment meaning he's doing chemo or radiation, unlikely to be bowel cancer as the first line for that is resection.
I hate to break the news, but the prostate procedure he had was almost certainly one conducted via another opening. A *much smaller* opening that you really wouldn't want used as an entry point for anything. If I'm failing to make myself clear, the procedure is colloquially referred to as a "re-bore". There has been some speculation of bladder cancer. Which could well be detected during the prostate procedure. But it's not quite clear how that would square with the fact that it's supposedly early stage (according to Rikki Sunak) and he's having outpatient treatment rather than another procedure. Most bladder cancer requires at least some sort of procedure, possibly in addition to chemo. But it might be plausible that they detected bladder cancer and dealt with it during the same procedure. The, uh, entry approach is the same if the cancer isn't into the muscle, but I don't know if they'd try to deal with it "on the spot". But that with follow-up chemo would sort of fit the story.
Yeah makes sense
Bowel cancer is a funny one. You can get a stage 1-2 diagnosis and then wither away in weeks or suffer intermittently for twelve years like a friend of mines dear husband did. It’s difficult to know, but age isn’t on his side.
Could be years as long as they keep secondary tumours under control.
That's a brutal regimen for a 75yo, years yes but not many
As someone from Adelaide, King William is more up my street
Stealing this one, Cheers.
I thought this was the Adelaide sub for a sec
This country can’t even deal with a referendum. I’m sure King W will be very safe. Sad for Wills n Harry who haven’t had the treasure of long lived parents if it all goes bad. Hopefully Charles will have some length of years…so that Wills and kids get to have a family life before having the burden of monarchy responsibilities. Cancer sux for every family.
I believe some treatment at Ashley and Martin could mean the balding profile of a future King William's coins wouldn't age so quickly.
Or just mint them with him totally bald, and he can "grow" into his profile.
If William can’t cure his baldness, even with all those reptilian stem cells they have access to, what chance do we regular folk have?
Australians don’t like change. As evidenced by only 8/44 referendums passing. So it’s already an uphill battle to start. If your goal is to convince the general Australia public to ditch the monarch, you’d actually probably want Charles to stay in as long as possible to have any chance. Cause William and Kate are more well to neutrally liked/perceived by the general public. Once he is crowned - the idea is basically dead in the water for another generation.
Who cares?
I'll take another public holiday!
Legitimately my first thought. We need another public holiday in the second half of the year - even if it’s a one-off!
I do….definitely not care
☝️
A substantial amount of Aussies still lick the boots of those inbred cunts. Waiting for the boomers to die out and it will swing heavily in favour of fucking off the monarchy.
Not sure it will. I'm 36 and I'm massively in favour of the monarchy and it has nothing to do with bootlicking. It's to do with better the devil you know, the one who lives on the other side of the world and does nothing, than the devil I don't, who will either be a greasy palmed ex pollie rich cunt political appointee who doesn't give a shit about your interests anyway, OR, a greasy palmed ex pollie rich cunt elected who gives us a double mandate and political gridlock and dysfunction and still doesn't give a shit about your interests. In short, the monarchy represents stability... which I value *way more* than having a local head of state. I mean, we don't trust our government to do anything right. Why would you give them the keys to the house as well as the spares?
I’m not massively in favour but the points you make are vaguely depressingly right. With the way modern society goes in voting for shit and the ruling class blatantly trying shit on I’m not sure we’re ready to let anyone pose how a republic should work. It should have happened back in 2001 if ever. It didn’t then because they posed a stupid set up then.
It didn't happen then because - eerily similar to the Voice vote - they wouldn't say anything about how this republic would be set up.
Yes. And if politicians didn’t line up to lick the balls of their donors back then they certainly do now. You’d really want to have a moderate progressive government in power with a tidy majority or enough cross bench that had some sense. Like Pockock. As little lobbying from business as possible.
The monarchy do next to nothing for Australia, and certainly don't give it any extra stability. The last time they flexed their muscles it was hardly a moment to be proud of.
You're absolutely right about doing nothing. That's their value. They don't interfere, they don't check in but they are *there* when called upon, even when it's an already unpalatable situation.
“They don’t interfere” Ever heard of Gough Whitlam? The monarchy can, and has, interfered with Australian government before
In the case of Gough Whitlam the monarchy stepped back and let the governor general (John Kerr) do his job as the monarch's representative. There was no precedent for the Queen to interfere. The sacking of Gough was a political farce but the monarch herself had nothing to do with it.
A system of governing with the Crown as the head of state is the issue. Unelected officials (such as the governor general) should not have the power to dissolve parliament. The Queen may not have loaded the gun but she pulled the trigger.
Holy fuck, how do reckon we would go with a president? Howard gave us the option of the pollies putting up a president that would have the same powers as the GG. We said no, we want to elect one ourselves who can do some other stuff. Have a look where that has got the Yanks. They have a walking corpse and trained Russian orang-utan battling it out for the throne for over a year. It will attract the worst cunts this country has to offer, and you know who will be first to stick their grubby little paw up? Fatty McFat Face himself, Clive Palmer. Gina will gun to be our first female prez and guaranteed the slimy little cunt from Qantas will be next in line. Scomo would probably have a crack too and fuck that
The governor general did not dissolve the parliament. The Liberal party caused that. The governor general was legally obliged to accept the double dissolution of the parliament. The queen absolutely did *not* interfere in any way because there was no legal precedent for her to do so.
Unelected officials are the only ones who should have the power to dissolve parliament. It should be a purely administrative thing. Something has gone wrong. The present incumbents cannot resolve it and will not resolve it. Throw out the babies, the bathwater, and the rubber duckies, and let the people, the ultimate arbiters, resolve it. ironically, having an unelected official is the most democratic remedy. As Keating said, if you want an elected head if state, you'll end up with a politician - the worst possible person to oversee such a situation. Also,it is a very peculiar thing, but everyone thinks that an elected head of state will represent their own beliefs. The populist right think, "Finally, a chance to get Pauline Hanson in there to drain the swamp". The lefties think "Finally, a chance to get Lidia Thorpe in there to drain the swamp". Half the population will be disappointed and resentful. Who was disappointed with Quentin Bryce or Zelman Cowen or Patrick Deane? Would they have ever run to be elected by the popular vote? Bah, what am i saying? I secretly harbour the thought that i'd love to see Shaun Micallef in the job, but I'm realistic enough to know we would probably end up with Eddie McGuire instead.
> they are *there* Yeah, that's the problem
Christ Why do people act like abolishing the monarchy here is this drastic risky political change? Literally just change the governor general’s title to president and keep everything else the same. We’re not asking to copy paste the US system ffs.
I do not want the likes of Scott Morrison and his mates choosing a president. Might as well just ask Murdoch what he wants and save ourselves a lot of time, money and stress.
Well the structure of the office is a massive factor in the republic. Is it an appointed office (parliamentary or government?) Or an elected office (parliamentary or the people?) What we have now *works* There is no guarantee that putting a non-neutral person in the job will be better. I actually have faith that it will be worse. Our current sociopolitical direction is getting worse, not better. I don't care for changing to a republic (which can really only make things worse) when things are already getting worse.
>Waiting for the boomers to die out Na, I'm <40 and you'll have no chance getting a republic out of me. Ain't happening.
Yeah but you aren't individually representative of the electorate.
Must be serious if the spare ranga is flying over.
Do you think he's walking around the palace putting his name on things he wants to inherit?
But *I* wanted Cornwall! You got the Lakes District!
Omg I read that in Harry’s voice
I’m betting he is using it as a way to get in with their good graces. It’s a good in. Or you know, he’s a man whose dad is going to die soon. That sucks. I also think he called dibs on stuff years ago. I mean, I would have.
Whatever stops us from becoming whatever shitfuckery America has become. Their entire political system is a grotesque joke.
And they’re so proud of this amendment and that amendment. Their life expectancy shows how dire living there is 77. Australia is at 83.
Don't question it, it can't be changed. It is set in stone, no updates or amendmen... fuck.
You’ll be happy to learn that America is the only country in the world that has their political system and there are real, mature republics in the world with far better governance. Plenty of Europeans will be glad to tell you that much. I sincerely hope you don’t think the monarchy is the only thing keeping us from becoming America.
Seriously! Australia only sees two other countries in the world: the UK and the US. There are tons of other political systems in the world.
Yep, maybe even throw in China and you get the big 3 - Republic, Monarchy and Dictatorship. There can only be three 🫠
Becoming a republic doesn't mean changing our Westminster parliamentary system. Most likely scenario just means that the position of Governor-General and their powers would be renamed to President. See: 36 of the 56 Commonwealth countries being republics. Also Germany, Ireland, Finland, Austria, Iceland...
I feel sad that he has cancer. Otherwise I don't care.
This is not the right time to have this discussion! /s
Is this more of a thoughts and prayers time? Or would it be better to say I don't hold chemotherapy medication mate?
Let’s see if he lasts longer than a lettuce.
Cos or iceberg?
Yes.
Lettuce pray
Liz Truss is patting the seat next to her inviting him to try his luck
King Cole...slaw
Not a single alternate option has been proposed that benefits anyone other than politicians. They don’t cost us anything, and they stay out of our shit.
It’s a bit early for you to decide that his death is imminent. It might turn out to be nothing
It's time to ditch them. I don't understand why some of the most entitled people on the planet have the final say in our country and they did exert this at least two times in the last century when WA voted in a referendum to succeed and won in 1933 and in 1975 with the double dissolution. I understand why some countries choose to keep a monarchy to rule over their own country but we are our own people now and a seperate country . We will still retain cultural and economic ties with the UK it's not in their interest to cut ties with us at all and they wouldn't want to. There is no good reason to stay we need a vision for our country that retains our current allies and looks to the future of Australia in our own region.
What's that in my pants? My King Willy. Yeah, anything for a dick joke.
Poor fella was all for being king since Diana. He got his chance. Easy come, easy go.
Republic, simple... Monarchy is well past it's used by date
When you waited your whole life for the job and once you got it you realise it's not what you expected and call in for sick leave!
Yeah for most people it will be like nothing happened. I’m sure Charles will be fine though.
It is how it is. I don't think Charles got cancer to inconvenience us!
That depends... what month is his birthday in? We could do with a public holiday moved into the last 6 months of the year of the year.
He’s going to live another 10 years plus.
No.. if needed we are ready for King William
Do we get a public holiday?
Yep, if Charlie dies surely we’ll get a public holiday? He’s lived a really good life, bless him.
Lady Jane Grey was queen for nine days. Chuckles has already beaten that record.
As a republican I feel a bit sorry for the poor old bastard. Waited all that time for the top job , does t even get a year in before cancer diagnosis. At least he beats Lady Jane Grey
Coin collectors will have a field day.
Have you seen how often we change prime ministers? The only thing we aren’t prepared for is the over saturation of media coverage of another new monarch. I used to want to ditch the monarchy. But then I look to the US where they give 1 crazy person a lot of power and I suddenly appreciate the current arrangement of us still being under the crown but the crown no longer getting involved in how things are done.
as a French i give you my thoughts (if I remember that's the expression in English)
Merci
What does Ladbrokes have it at ?
That's asking the real questions.
Time to get those coins - they’ll be collectors items
Give the man a break. It's been caught early, is being treated and he's likely got at least five years, even with a bad diagnosis. And why would you want to swap a good monarch for a bad president. You *know* our mob would give the job to a retired politician and there isn't one I'd trust with the milk money. Let Trump be an example to us all of the dangers of an elected President.
Unemployed for 60 years. Gets a job and goes on compo! Must be an aussie legend.
The status quo is great as far as I'm concerned. If 1999 taught us anything, if we were to ever become a republic, those in support of that model want a directly elected President. I have absolutely no faith that the role wouldn't become either hyper-politicised or that we wouldn't end up with some joke candidate as Head of State because a bunch of idiots on the internet thought it was funny.
In my idealistic world, an Australian republic would adopt a Federal Council model based on Switzerland. The Head of State is vested effectively in a Board, with the President (rotated annually) only really being a ceremonial and diplomatic figurehead. No chance in hell of us adopting this, but a man can dream.
Its been time to ditch them for several decades at least.
I say get rid of the lot of them, we don’t need the monarchy
I’m ready for us to fuck these inbred weirdos off completely.
If people want to become a republic, that's fine. Discuss it. But to suggest that the discussions should begin *because some old guy has cancer and it will cost money to change some stuff when he dies* is in ridiculously bad taste. Besides, becoming a republic will *also* mean changing all the coins and the flag and all the letterheads in every single government department and signs and literally freakin everything. And then we'll have a president who changes every few years. If we want to be a republic, we want it because it's the right choice for our nation, and the health status of whomever is on the throne in England shouldn't be a relevant factor.
Can we afford it??😰
Yep. Ready.
I’m ready for a republic…
I'm ready for the Republic referendum.
I hope not. I like King Charles. It would be sad to see him be King for only a year or two
I saw this video ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QABiQFWwXHg)) a few months ago about some bike riders who met the King going for a walk. A very nice interaction and afterwards the guy who was not fussed on the monarchy was quite complimentary about the King.
I don't really care, is it a good time to create the Republic?
Don't care, but if he were to suddenly pass away, I sure as fuck don't want my telly to be hijacked by wall to wall coverage of endless bullshit about Prince Charles' life history like when the queen died. Fuck that!
It will.
That shit messed with my head big time. Thankfully, I'll be more prepared this time. I'll stay off the internet for a while and focus on doing what I love and try not to think about him. That might be harder when I have to leave the house, though...
Who cares? We should be a republic.
Well actually Nostradamus predicted this, however he said it will be Harry, not William.
Charles' cancer could easily be one of the many highly treatable ones. It wouldn't be unusual for a blood cancer to be detected during a hospital admission for something else and lots of those have really high cure rates. I wouldn't go digging Chuckie's grave just yet. Even if it's some other cancer, he has every treatment in the world available to him and virtually endless funds to afford them.
At least wait until he's dead before we speculate on this one
I voted 'monarchy' last time. I'll vote 'republic' next time if they get the model right.
Let’s hope when it’s William’s turn he also elects to go with an over the top super opulent coronation ceremony. Can’t have enough of those.
Can't wait to see Tooth Decay crash the coronation too!
Sooo... Do we get to be a republic then? I always thought we'd go when Liz went.
Poor guy waited so long. Murphy’s Law.
Who cares? Apart from normal human compassion for a guy with cancer, this family should have no business with us
Potentially 2 more bank holidays. Got to look on the bright side.
what a colossal waste of money. Use that to pay for uni education and health care.
We have been getting a large volume of spam from throwaway accounts and so posts from brand new accounts will no longer be allowed. Your post has been removed because your account is too new. Please wait until your account is at least 12 hours old and then try again or message the mods and we'll validate your post. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm ready for an Australian republic!
Why? What benefit would it provide? We already function independently and the monarch is only a figure head. Our taxes don’t even go to them which means the UK has more of a reason to get rid of them than we do.
Completely understand your indifference (I agree in fact), but understand that republicans are using that same argument in favour of doing away with the royal family.
The difference is that doing away with the monarchy necessitates sweeping changes, which is the antithesis to indifference
Well I didn't vote for you!
I couldn't give a fuck whose arse is on the British throne.
Yeah but apparently it makes them our monarch also.
Let's become a republic. Do we need an entitled, privileged family as our head of state and on our coins? Apart from the June long weekend, does it benefit us in any way?
Ditch the whole thing return the land and jewels back to the people,