“ Australians can request printed versions of the portraits through their Federal Member of the House of Representatives or Senator in their state or territory.”
Newly released and free!
Free Portrait of HM King Charles III for Citizens of Australia by Request to Your Federal MP
13918
Kazusa on 28/07/2024 - 16:28 pmc.gov.au (13187 clicks)
Last edited 29/07/2024 - 10:54 by 1 other user
Last edited 29/07/2024 - 10:54 by 1 other user
Related Stores
Comments
could have been a deal if it was a door mat.
What! A portrait of normal Charlie, not the blood red portrait of Lord Charligo the Carpathian? No deal.
This dude spends quite a lot of money on the best food he eats is what I hear.
Anyone got a copy? Are his fingers in the pic?
And if one wanted to send one of these to one's friend.. How would one do so?
I'm going to get one of those printed and put it in a little frame and put it on my wife's bedside table (she says she supports the monarchy). Can't wait for the reaction.
Just to show you're not prejudiced… you could get one of horsey's portraits and put it on your bedsider, for a matching pair.
I see you want to avoid the cost of living issues by not having an legitimate offspring with your missus.
Ol mate forgot to iron his pants.
Isn't Charles the Biden in Royal Family?
Yeah like Andrew is the Trump.
Can I get mine with a copy of the recording of his famously leaked telephone conversation with Camilla (when he was still married to Diana) telling her he wanted to be her sanitary product (now known as Tampongate)? Would be a great conversation starter at our Kings Birthday holiday BBQs.
Utter fraud.
Turns you on does it…
Too many royalists lurking in this place for my liking! I mean, any ozbargainer that reckons pommy royalty is a bargain need to take a good hard look at themselves, and then self flagellate!
I gave you a + tp do my bit at introducing some reality to the bootlickery going on.any ozbargainer that reckons pommy royalty is a bargain need to take a good hard look at themselves
Well a bargain is only a bargain when compared against the other alternatives, and you failed to provide any.
Given the choice of the current situation, or a US style president and all the BS that goes along with that, I think the current situation works much better. So what alternative are you proposing that you'd consider a better 'bargain'?Since the King is effectively free for Australians, and a 'president' or other head of state would cost us millions per year, I'd love to here how you think that is more of a bargain?
You've made it clear you don't know the difference in roles between british royalty and a "US style president"
Given that super clanger… the mind boggles why your handle is "1st-amendment"… and what you think that actually means.
@rooster7777: I see you failed to answer my question.
Lots of posturing, but no actual useful contribution of any kind… As expected…
I'n all for this as a deal for the Monarchy loyalists but your argument makes no sense. The head of state offers zero value to Australia on a operational perspective, it's an official decree they do not meddle in Australian domestic politics. The governor general is the representative locally which essentially a cushy gig to rubberstamp for excess of half a mil per year plus more in travel, security and generous allowances and pension. It has zero practical function. Arguably depending on how politically cynical you are the PM is a much better value for similar salary but actually runs the country (or tries to look like they do)
The head of state offers zero value to Australia
Every nation has a head of state. The value is to have person of power that can act to protect the people from its elected leaders if they stray too far from their official responsibilities. This position is of immense value when it is needed.
The choice at the last referendum was to have one that costs us almost nothing, or one that would likely cost well over $1M/year, and cause all sorts of political issues/partisanship.
I'm still waiting hear why the case for the latter is a better bargain.
@1st-Amendment: looks like someone weren't paying attention in high school.
the monarchy isn't a political position. it does not make decisions on whether the govt 'strays too far or not'. if australia passed a law to have prince william stripped to his undies on arrival to immigration it'd be powerless to stop it, it only makes rulings on whether the constitution and processes have been upheld, such as in the case of Whitlam. it's a figure head, without monarchy these processes would be exactly the same and disputes would be settled by constitutional lawyers in the high court instead, like in the States.
you seem to feel it's a free bonus for good of australians. so tell us then, how much do you think the GG cost the public purse and what do they actually do?
looks like someone weren't paying attention in high school.
If you going to play the I'm smarter than you card, you need to show that you grasp basic rules of capitalisation and gramma…
the monarchy isn't a political position. it does not make decisions on whether the govt 'strays too far or not'.
Looks like someone weren't [sic] paying attention in high school. Might want to Google 'Gough Whitlam'…
how much do you think the GG cost the public purse and what do they actually do?
See above.
I'm still waiting hear why the case for the latter is a better bargain.
@1st-Amendment: ah the desperation of resorting to picking on typing and grammar. i note you haven't answered any of the questions posed and your responses clearly demonstrate you have no idea what a GG even is. the typical ' why don't you google it' is a non sequitur that won't fool anyone
@May4th: You:
ah the desperation of resorting to picking on typing and grammar.
Also you:
looks like someone weren't paying attention in high school.
Self awareness level = 0
i note you haven't answered any of the questions posed
Irony level = ∞
I asked first. Why don't you take your own advice?
Hypocrisy level = ∞
is a non sequitur
Comprehension level = 0
You literally said "the monarchy isn't a political position. it does not make decisions on whether the govt 'strays too far or not' and I gave you a real word example of when it did exactly that. And you think that somehow believe that to be a non-sequitur? This is comedy, thanks for the attempt…
@1st-Amendment: you mean the example you gave above about head of state that showed you don't know what you are talking about? you have provided zero factually correct information in this entire thread and since you are obviously quite far along the dunning kruger curve (google it) there's no use engaging with you further
you have provided zero factually correct information
You seem to have confused your 'opinion' with 'fact'. It's yet more mental gymnastics on display…
@1st-Amendment: The irony of you of all people saying the above while also handing out stickers to people saying "congrats you have zero self awareness"
Conspiracy theorists really are the (unwanted) gift that keeps on giving
The irony of you…
So in response to comment about confusing opinion with fact, you went and did exactly that. This comedy writes itself…
Conspiracy theorists
What 'conspiracy theory'? Have some more straws to grasp…
The irony of "1st-Amendment" being pro-monarchy.
Given the choice of the current situation, or a US style president and all the BS that goes along with that, I think the current situation works much better. So what alternative are you proposing that you'd consider a better 'bargain'?
Have you actually read any of America's founding documents, and the text of the first amendment? Or is it all just virtue signalling? If you haven't, perhaps you should actually go back and read some of America's founding documents - the Declaration of Independence is a good place to start.
Over half of the Declaration of Independence discusses exactly the answer to your question of why a British monarch should not be the Head of State of a foreign, overseas territory. The line you are looking for:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And perhaps the final paragraph:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Obviously I am not suggesting that the relationship between America and the Crown in 1776 is the same as the relationship between Australia and the Crown in 2024, but the critical ideas are there - that it is ridiculous for us to not be "free and independent", that we still "swear allegiance" to the British Crown, that we are subjects to an overseas King who has no similar allegiance to us.
If you purport to be so supportive of the ideals laid out by the US Founding Fathers, then perhaps actually read some of what they wrote instead of being an NPC virtue signaller. Or perhaps just change your username.
As for the "bargain" element - the answer and logistics are simple. Just make the Governor General the figure-head, keep their duties and what they are paid the same. Cut ties to the British crown without any further costs, mess, or anything that would "cost us millions per year". Don't be a political hack my friend.
Have you actually read any of America's founding documents
Yes.
Or is it all just virtue signalling?
See above. Which part of anything that I wrote did you think was 'virtue signalling'? Please be specific here and quote the exact passage. I merely asked a question, a simple one that no-one has been able to answer which itself is the most interesting part. There's deflection and attempted insults, but no answering of the question…
perhaps you should actually go back and read some of America's founding documents
I'm familiar with most of it, which bit did you think was most relevant?
Over half of the Declaration of Independence discusses exactly the answer to your question
It doesn't, but let's hear your case…
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations
That doesn't answer my question.
all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Where are these facts? Do you believe that King Charles 3 to be a 'tyrant'? Could you give examples of this 'tyranny' as your quote suggests?
We, therefore…
Nowhere in that paragraph is my question answered.
Obviously I am not suggesting that the relationship between America and the Crown in 1776 is the same as the relationship between Australia and the Crown in 2024
You just did exactly that…
that it is ridiculous for us to not be "free and independent"
Define 'free and independent'? What exactly would you gain from the change? Replacing one token HoS with anther token HoS would produce no change to anything. It would cost a lot and achieve nothing. Whether that token HoS is the King, or a 'US style president' <- that phrase seemed to trigger a lot of people, what are the tangible real-life benefits to you and me?
If you purport to be so supportive of the ideals laid out by the US Founding Fathers, then perhaps actually read some of what they wrote
I have, let me know which bits you think are relevant because this attempt was noble, but fell short.
instead of being an NPC virtue signaller. Or perhaps just change your username.
You see this is where you fall over. You could've just answered the question or engaged in discussion but instead went here. What do you think that achieved other than to make you look immature?
As for the "bargain" element - the answer and logistics are simple. Just make the Governor General the figure-head, keep their duties and what they are paid the same. Cut ties to the British crown without any further costs, mess, or anything that would "cost us millions per year".
Oh wait a moment, you actually did answer the question right there. So all that other stuff was for what exactly? Why not just write that?
I'm going to address this in another post to keep the signal clear of the noise.
Don't be a political hack my friend.
I merely asked a question. It's amazing how some people are triggered by questions…
Continued in the next post…
As for the "bargain" element - the answer and logistics are simple. Just make the Governor General the figure-head, keep their duties and what they are paid the same. Cut ties to the British crown without any further costs, mess, or anything that would "cost us millions per year".
This is the only useful bit in your whole response so I'm going to try and focus on this bit.
Ok so let's explore this idea who would appoint this GG? Parliament, or the people?
If Parliament, it turns the position into a political one. This was idea voted down at the referendum, so most people clearly don't like that.
If the people, then it turns into an even bigger shit-fight as we now have yet another election cycle to deal with. All the money, hype, posturing and BS that goes with that. Do you really want that? Just look at the current election or the last referendum. These things are neither healthy nor productive IMO.Now look at what the status quo. What is is being lost or gained by continuing as is? If this was 1776 then you could probably make a good case, but as you stated , it's not 1776, The King is not a tyrant, in my opinion a royal family offers some added value over a pure political appointment because a lot of people have romantic notions of Kings and Queens, they represent a historical connection to our past and provide a backbone to the structure of our society. A king or Queen will always carry more gravitas than any GG ever could. I also understand that some people don't like that, but weighing up the pros and cons, I'm struggling to see how change results in a tangible net benefit to anyone.
If you can make the case, I'd be happy to hear it. But try keep it on subject, and rather than make assumptions about what I've read or haven't read, you can just ask me, I try to answer any questions if they're on topic.Ok so let's explore this idea who would appoint this GG? Parliament, or the people?
We already have a way of appointing a GG, there is no indication that it needs to change.
If Parliament, it turns the position into a political one. This was idea voted down at the referendum, so most people clearly don't like that.
Sure, but having a monarchy is also "political". Regardless of what option you choose, there will always be people who like it and don't like it.
If this was 1776 then you could probably make a good case, but as you stated , it's not 1776, The King is not a tyrant
The King himself may not be a tyrant, but the idea of monarchy is inherently tyrannical.
in my opinion a royal family offers some added value over a pure political appointment because a lot of people have romantic notions of Kings and Queens
People have romantic notions of all sorts of different ideas, it doesn't necessarily make them good policy.
I'm sure there are those out there who have romantic notions of segregation, or whacko religious ideas, or stoning the gays. Perhaps this is what you believe, I don't know. Doesn't mean that we should necessarily adopt that as policy.
they represent a historical connection to our past and provide a backbone to the structure of our society.
Can you give evidence as to how having a monarchy provides a "backbone to the structure of our society"?
Again, I find it bizarre that "1st-Amendment" is saying this, as what the American Founding Fathers said in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
In other words, that the "backbone to the structure of our society" is based on a set of unalienable Rights, and that the structure of society itself comes from the consent of individuals.
If anything, a monarchy is completely antithetical to the backbone of our current society which is based on freedom and consent. If I don't like Albanese, I can vote him out. If I don't like King Charles, it's just tough titties right?
A king or Queen will always carry more gravitas than any GG ever could. I also understand that some people don't like that, but weighing up the pros and cons, I'm struggling to see how change results in a tangible net benefit to anyone.
Sure, but you could also ask the reverse question.
Why is it incumbent on those who are anti-monarchy to prove that not having a monarch provides a tangible net benefit to people.
What about those who are pro-monarchy? What tangible net benefits does having a monarchy provide?
We already have a way of appointing a GG, there is no indication that it needs to change.
Well there is, we had a referendum and the majority of voters said they didn't want that. Does the voice of the people count? That was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence you referenced earlier. More power in the hands of the people. The people were given a choice, they made it clear they didn't like that option.
but having a monarchy is also "political".
It's the least political option because neither political party has any say in it. I prefer that option myself, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
but the idea of monarchy is inherently tyrannical.
Could you give us an example of how you have been oppressed by the current monarchy?
People have romantic notions of all sorts of different ideas, it doesn't necessarily make them good policy.
No, but weighing up the options provided, that one is the least worst IMO, so it wins.
Can you give evidence as to how having a monarchy provides a "backbone to the structure of our society"?
Because we can connect our present day back 1000 years to William the Conqueror. That history provides a reference point for our ethics, morals, legal system, literature, spirituality etc etc. You can't just pretend that doesn't exist just because you don't like it. That 1000 years produced a lot the greatest achievements in human history. Universal rule of law, personal freedom, equality under the law, that stuff still doesn't exist in many places.
Again, I find it bizarre that "1st-Amendment" is saying this
I can't speak to how your mind works. Free speech is not an issue that King Charles 3 interferes with so I see no conflict. If anything our local government is more of a tyrant against this with the censorship, hate speech, eSafety commissioner etc. I want less of that, and a local HoS would only empower more of that type of thing IMO.
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
We had a referendum and the majority consented to the current form of government. This is what separates 2024 (or 1999) from 1776. They had no choice, revolution was the only path out of tyranny. We have no tyranny and we can easily vote our way out of the current situation if we choose. That's why these things are not comparable. If for example King Charles started demanding unreasonable things then I'd be right there fighting for freedom, but that isn't the case.
Changing to a GG or other HoS model would add no more freedom than I have now. It would add overhead and risk for no gain IMO, and we'd lose that direct connection with the past which I value.
a monarchy is completely antithetical to the backbone of our current society which is based on freedom and consent
The difference is that the current arrangement doesn't impede any of your freedoms. If it did I'd agree, but it doesn't so what are you losing right now today?
If I don't like Albanese, I can vote him out.
This is just a perception thing. I don't like Anthony Albanese, I can't vote him out. I don't particularly like Peter Dutton either and I can't vote him in or out. I can vote obviously, but really what is that achieve other than playing a game?
Sure, but you could also ask the reverse question.
Ah but that's not how it works. It's always incumbent of those proposing change to demonstrate the the change would result in an improvement, otherwise why bother with the effort and risk of change?
Why is it incumbent on those who are anti-monarchy to prove that not having a monarch provides a tangible net benefit to people.
Because that's the current situation and that always takes precedent. Why do we drive on the left, maybe the right would be better? All change has to be justified otherwise we'd be living in chaos and constant random changes for no justifiable reason. Chesterton's Fence is a good analogy here.
What about those who are pro-monarchy? What tangible net benefits does having a monarchy provide?
I'm not pro-monarchy, I'm pro what is the best option, or maybe pro the least-worst option, and so far that is the status quo.
I find Australian political landscape quite lowbrow. There's a lot of dumb ideas that get too much oxygen, so adding more of that doesn't sound great to me. By having a HoS with a connection back to things much greater than us is a win IMO. As long as that HoS is not interfering in my life, I wouldn't want to risk changing that to something that might.
HoS with a connection back to things much greater than us
and there we have it, could have saved us all the essays and just said this
could have saved us
Who is 'us'? Are you off your meds? Or is this another display of Main Character Syndrome?
Feel free to add to the discussion, or just do whatever it is you just did there and see where that takes you…
@1st-Amendment: us - all of us who wasted minutes of our lives reading your long winded non-sensical responses.
don't let yourself get too worked up - it isn't good for your health. i'm tapping out and wishing you a good long life
Well there is, we had a referendum and the majority of voters said they didn't want that. Does the voice of the people count? That was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence you referenced earlier. More power in the hands of the people. The people were given a choice, they made it clear they didn't like that option.
I'm not trying to speculate on whether Australia would vote to become a republic today or not. The reality is that if a referendum were held today, the outcome wouldn't really be clear, e.g. see: https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/46044-one-year-king-…. However, it is clear that there has been increased support for a republic following the passing of Queen Elizabeth.
It's the least political option because neither political party has any say in it. I prefer that option myself, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Yes, but the fact that certain people prefer a monarchy, and others don't makes monarchy a political issue.
Could you give us an example of how you have been oppressed by the current monarchy?
The fundamental construct of a monarchy is oppressive. It goes against the basic ideas of meritocracy and democracy. The reality is that we would not accept a hereditary transfer of power in most circumstances, so why should we when it comes to our Head of State?
Would it be acceptable that the children of any other people in positions of power simply inherit that position upon the death of their parent?
Because we can connect our present day back 1000 years to William the Conqueror. That history provides a reference point for our ethics, morals, legal system, literature, spirituality etc etc. You can't just pretend that doesn't exist just because you don't like it. That 1000 years produced a lot the greatest achievements in human history. Universal rule of law, personal freedom, equality under the law, that stuff still doesn't exist in many places.
So are you suggesting that if we were to be a republic that somehow we can't "connect our present day back 1,000 years"? All of the stuff you're referring to - our ethics, morals, legal system, literature, whatever the case would still exist as a matter of history.
What about all of the countries who have chosen to become a republic, have they all just somehow lost track of all of their ethics, morals, legal system, literature…etc.? FWIW, the "connections" will still exist - there will still be books, monuments, historical buildings, and so on, none of which have anything to do with the British monarchy.
You can't have it both ways here - you can't in one breath say that whether we're a monarchy or republic won't affect anyone, and in the same breath, say that it is the cornerstone of our ethics and morals. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I can't speak to how your mind works. Free speech is not an issue that King Charles 3 interferes with so I see no conflict. If anything our local government is more of a tyrant against this with the censorship, hate speech, eSafety commissioner etc. I want less of that, and a local HoS would only empower more of that type of thing IMO.
Are you kidding?
During Charles' coronation, police arrested over 50 protesters who were holding up signs of "Not My King". https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/police-arrest-anti-monarchy…
If this is not a free speech issue, then I don't know what is.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to waste further time responding to someone who speaks out of both sides of their mouth, you can't in one breath say "I'm not pro-monarchy", and in the next, say "we'd lose that direct connection with the past which I value".
Would it be acceptable that the children of any other people in positions of power simply inherit that position upon the death of their parent?
I get what you're saying here, on paper that sounds bad, but there are cases where a benevolent dictator works better than an incompetent democratically elected leader. So I don't think it's so black and white. If the dictator is actually doing nothing other than ceremonial work, and as long as the mechanism exist to remove the dictator if they turn bad them I'm actually fine with it. And we actually have that in this specific case. This is obviously not true across the board. There is an element of real-world outcomes vs theory here.
When I look at Albanese or Dutton, or Morrison or Shorten, and compare with King Charles or Queen Elizabeth, I think they work better as HoS, There is something in that.
What about all of the countries who have chosen to become a republic, have they all just somehow lost track of all of their ethics, morals, legal system, literature…etc.?
Hence my comment about the 'US style president', do you think that is working out well? Is that a better outcome?
there will still be books, monuments, historical buildings, and so on.
Based on recent events there might not be. All great nations eventually fall, what causes that to happen? Not all change is good.
During Charles' coronation, police arrested over 50 protesters who were holding up signs of "Not My King".
And you know why right? Because the UK has no free speech laws, not only no free speech laws, but quite draconian anti free speech laws, and none of that is because of the King. That is the key to whole puzzle, hence my nickname. With free speech, tyranny can never take hold, it is more important piece than the Kings vs Presidents debate.
If this is not a free speech issue, then I don't know what is.
King Charles doesn't write or enforce the laws, if he did I'd agree with you 100%. He's a token HoS, one that does a better job at tokenism of higher aspirational goals than any local ever could. As an extreme example, if Pauline Hanson was voted in as our HoS would you be as supportive of the concept?
I'm not going to waste further time responding to someone who speaks out of both sides of their mouth
What does that even mean? If you are confused about something, just ask for clarification…
"I'm not pro-monarchy", and in the next, say "we'd lose that direct connection with the past which I value".
Depends on your definition of 'pro-monarchy'. Some people are 'royal family or die'. I'm not that. Some people are 'not my King' and I'm not that either. There is plenty of space in the middle for other options.
So to find the happy middle ground, let me try and offer something in the middle. You'd need a solution that doesn't involve the royal family, but also doesn't rely on some sort of politically charged appointment, so here's an idea (and I haven't thought about this in detail so it might contain holes):
Instead of a GG a single HoS, what about a 'council of elders', some sort of body that contains only former PM's or other high ranking officials or business or military leaders (or something?) who have proven themselves in the service of the nation as non-extreme non-activist types. They get appointed for life to avoid election type issues, with not much real power, or pay, more of a ceremonial and guidance body to act as the 'backbone' of the nation. Along with this council, we establish a Bill of Rights which has freedom of expression and individual sovereignty as it's core (similar to other famous historical documents). This Bill of Rights would acknowledge this history and value of 2500 years of Western Civilisation and all the good things that has brought humanity, while acknowledging that progress is journey, and not all steps on that journey have been perfect. With the idea that it is there to protect the people from the government not to be used by the government to shit on the people.
That idea just popped into my head so take it with a grain of salt. I'm trying to come up with a way that doesn't involve a Monarchy to show that I'm not pro-pro-monarchy, even if I think that the current setup is actually working out ok.
No red background = no sale
Can we get an accompanying framed portrait of Bronwyn Bishop?
'Strange women lying in ponds, distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government!'
I suspect only the older ozbargainer will get this one
All that money and they couldn't put him in a tailored suit?
Seriously! I expected the clothing to be better for a king!
Who would want a photo of him???
Hitmen?
Unnecessary, those ears are visible from space.
For those that need their dartboard updated!!!
Looks ridiculous. Those pants have more bagginess than MC Hammer pants!
The shoulders are hanging off him too.For the King of England, he looks like he's borrowed those clothes from someone else!
Last time I asked for a portrait (of Prince Philip), my local MPs office claimed they didn't have any and would get back to me when they had more available. Which of course never happened - disgraceful! Lol
https://live.staticflickr.com/1154/592408465_1274340a9a_z.jp… Just frame this one in the dunny instead, remember him at his finest.
Nice! I'm going to get one and put it on my leftist gf's wall muahaha
I was expecting a tampon ad jingle.
My mum was a huge Diana fan so im gonna grab the one of them both and Camilla for her and frame them for her birthday in August. Priceless. Thanks OP
That's..
That's the joke..
Poor old Charlie -really does look like he scored his suit at the Op Shop.
Surprised he doesn't have a better fitting oneReally amazing his minders let him out like that. Lol
I knew it. Camilla is a spitter not a swallower
How to request printed version? I don't see a button.
Australians can request printed versions of the portraits through their Federal Member of the House of Representatives or Senator in their state or territory.
I saw that. but didn't see a link
I think we need to spend time on the phone with our local MP in return.
Absolutely gutted Charles kept his hands behind his back for the shoot… I really wanted to see those sausages in gorgeous 4K
Is that the one with the devil in the background?
accidentallespatterson
Kate would be better for the bathroom.
How much is that costing? Isn't there better things to spend tax payer $ on??
Agreed…. If we have to have anything associated with british royalty, at least make it an australian product, like that daft wingnut that knighted phil the greek.
You're right. Let's become a Republic
Why is this a deal?
Nothing is free… this will end up costing the taxpayer…100%
200%
I seem to recall that most of the (few) Greens Senators are anti-monarchy - Time to annoy some of them by specifically;ly asking them for something that they don't endorse.
Onya buttonhead!
Brilliant. My local member is a crooked old hag from the Greens, I shall be requesting one from her office.
I was about to make this exact comment.
The greens love arranging monarchy portraits for their loyal constituents
No thanks. Give me Harry & Meghan's portrait.
The monarchy and Charles can go (profanity) themselves.
Oh, right- they have been for centuriesSomething between family strokes, and family feud.
Except Harry, he isn't related
yeah those bloody colonised native brutes. or are we not allowed to say that any more?
This is a great deal and a quality portrait. Thanks OP.
Waste of taxpayers money
But wait there's more. While stocks last you will also receive this limited edition recording of the governor general's wife's greatest hits
Probably requested 10 or more over the years, never received a single one.
"Australians can request printed versions of the portraits", there's nothing about receiving.
Wondering what type of people want this thing.
The worst: monarchists
Oh dear we need to become a republic ASAP
Aren't we lucky we live in country that we can take the piss out on our King.
In China you would all get a knock on the door in the early hours tomorrow morning…..Don't try this in Thailand.
Oh the privilege of not being shot for taking the piss out of a non-elected inbred rich dude. SO LUCKY
Or in a muslim country you would be decapitated…..
Does it come in a free frame
Where's the Prince Andrew Boeing 727 edition?