The Trouble With Harry
Labels:
fair go mate
The other week I got
new glasses.
And while my francophone
optometrist tested my eyes he asked me, "You're from Australia aren't
you?"
"Yes," I said, keeping my breathing shallow, so as not to appear bashfully swaggering, (like the Aussie bloke in that old Sunlong Rice advert-me think it 'mazing).
"And the Queen of Great Britain, she's the Queen of Australia too isn't she?"
"Yes," I answered, "by the constitution she is."
"So does that make Prince Harry Australian too?"
"No. No. Don't get me wrong," he backpedaled, "it's an interesting question." Well it is at that, I have to admit. When you start thinking about it, it really is a captivating question.
Not that I give a flying f…f… fox, if Harry cavorts around naked. But the question that goes begging is, are the monarch's descendants Australian, sort of by proxy? It got my mind whirling; like an Iranian centrifuge.
You see what I really got to wondering is, what IF the person joined to the buttocks that Harry was no doubt intending to leapfrog in Las Vegas (except that some reprehensible individual slipped a banana peel onto his run-up) just happened to be a sleeping Swede; and then before Daddy could manage to fly poor Harry out, Dominique Strauss-Kahn petitioned for a writ of mandamus on the grounds of discriminatory enforcement , and then IF in the meantime somebody hacked the English Post Office's modem and all English telecommunications collapsed, would the Australian Embassy then have extended consular assistance to Harry?
I mean if the Queen of England is the Queen of Australia what does that say about Harry or Prince Charles or William if they're not mentioned in the constitution? Does a claim to the throne grant them Australian nationality, or a passport, maybe foreign residency? Hell, the way the Eurozone is looking they may well want to sell up and reinvest down under. Should we let them? At least Charles got a bit of Aussie schooling. But as for William and Harry, they didn't even get their ears pinned back attending Geelong Grammar Timbertop.
And weirder still, as if by way of a flaky afternoon reverie, as drowsiness converges into doziness, and you're not sure if your daydream vision is about another dream or something you really experienced, were the separate but vaguely convergent articles I read in The Age and The Guardian over the weekend. Ah the things we read because of new glasses. One was about covert vestiges of Royal prerogative in modern day British lawmaking and the other about the Queen's untraceable influence in John Kerr's sacking of Gough Whitlam.
Makes you wonder. Maybe they fixed the game between the West Coast Eagles and Hawthorn too?
"Yes," I said, keeping my breathing shallow, so as not to appear bashfully swaggering, (like the Aussie bloke in that old Sunlong Rice advert-me think it 'mazing).
"And the Queen of Great Britain, she's the Queen of Australia too isn't she?"
"Yes," I answered, "by the constitution she is."
"So does that make Prince Harry Australian too?"
"No. No. Don't get me wrong," he backpedaled, "it's an interesting question." Well it is at that, I have to admit. When you start thinking about it, it really is a captivating question.
Not that I give a flying f…f… fox, if Harry cavorts around naked. But the question that goes begging is, are the monarch's descendants Australian, sort of by proxy? It got my mind whirling; like an Iranian centrifuge.
You see what I really got to wondering is, what IF the person joined to the buttocks that Harry was no doubt intending to leapfrog in Las Vegas (except that some reprehensible individual slipped a banana peel onto his run-up) just happened to be a sleeping Swede; and then before Daddy could manage to fly poor Harry out, Dominique Strauss-Kahn petitioned for a writ of mandamus on the grounds of discriminatory enforcement , and then IF in the meantime somebody hacked the English Post Office's modem and all English telecommunications collapsed, would the Australian Embassy then have extended consular assistance to Harry?
I mean if the Queen of England is the Queen of Australia what does that say about Harry or Prince Charles or William if they're not mentioned in the constitution? Does a claim to the throne grant them Australian nationality, or a passport, maybe foreign residency? Hell, the way the Eurozone is looking they may well want to sell up and reinvest down under. Should we let them? At least Charles got a bit of Aussie schooling. But as for William and Harry, they didn't even get their ears pinned back attending Geelong Grammar Timbertop.
And weirder still, as if by way of a flaky afternoon reverie, as drowsiness converges into doziness, and you're not sure if your daydream vision is about another dream or something you really experienced, were the separate but vaguely convergent articles I read in The Age and The Guardian over the weekend. Ah the things we read because of new glasses. One was about covert vestiges of Royal prerogative in modern day British lawmaking and the other about the Queen's untraceable influence in John Kerr's sacking of Gough Whitlam.
Makes you wonder. Maybe they fixed the game between the West Coast Eagles and Hawthorn too?
No comments:
Post a Comment