If there was any doubt

If there was ever any doubt about the dangers of in-breeding then this picture removes any doubt. This silly old nana is clearly as mad as a snake and comes complete with a dysfunctional and equally mad as snakes family.

It's about time we put an end to the charade of the monarchy in New Zealand.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Coyote

    I've sworn an oath to this woman. For Clark it would be AT not for.


    You republicans are funny lot but there's so few of you that we don't give a crap what you think. "Inbreed:, yes theres a compelling political argument. 

  • While I don't share WhaleOil's case against the monarchy, I do share his view that we should end the charade of the monarchy in New Zealand. The whole "I don't want Clark as my head of state" is pretty devoid. There's hardly any examples of former Prime Ministers becoming heads of state in Parliamentary republics.

    Oh,  and around 1/3 of New Zealanders' isn't a small number – and we're pretty evenly spread between National and Labour supporters.


  • Jack

    Removing your blog RSS from by feeds.

  • Coyote

    Fuck off holden, you're lying hypocyte with as much grasp of the functionality of a consititutional monarchy as a road killed possum.

  • Brian

    Shame, whaleoil you had come out in support to ruining New Zealand’s Constitutional Makeup. Normally, your views are spot on; amazing how much damage to credibility you can do in a single post.

  • Coyote – Ah, the personal insult. Never a good debating tactic that.

    But nonetheless – the "functionality of the monarchy"? By that I assume you mean the constitutionally useless appendix in our constitution that adds nothing and provides the executive a petticoat of legitimacy in the Crown?

    Brian – "Ruining New Zealand's constitutional make up"? How so? Did Whaleoil advocate abolishing Parliament, repealing the Bill of Rights 1688? Umm no.

  • Whaleoil

    I fail to see how my "credibility" has been damaged. I have never been a monarchist. I am a confirmed Republican, always have been and never tempted by the absurdity of a hereditary monarchy where the only qualification of being one is having the "right" parents.

    I stand by my comments about her being a silly old nana and having a disfunctional family, clearly these are irrefutable truths given the amount of press articles that confirm both statements. 

    Viva la Republic!!!!! 

  • Brian

    Lewis, Whaleoil is advocating the removal of the fundamental safeguard, and makeup of our country. Our Sovereign provides us with Leadership above and beyond party politics.

    I don't want a republic of any sort. Royalty is for everyone, a President is just for yourself.

    Vivat Regina!!!

  • Whaleoil

    What leadership has that old nana ever shown us, sitting over there in whinger land.

    Not much good has ever come out of England in the last 50 years unless of course if you're a unionist. 

    I'm not saying remove it, without replacing it with nothing you fool. It is simply a matter of time until New Zealand is a republic, the list of monarchist gets smaller and the list of republicans grows longer, I also suspect that the question will be a slam dunk if the fool Charles is ever crowned King of New Zealand. 

  • Brian

    Remember that a republic is not inevitable. Don’t use the slight possibility that New Zealand may one day become a republic, an argument for a republic today.

    What a typical republican comment and a favorite myth amongst republicans. One must always seem to remind republicans that their beloved republics are not immune from scandal; the list of republican scandals is too long, to briefly comment on here. 

    Prince Charles has been born into duty, and has been raised to serve us. He is an able father, and devoted to serve the people. 

    The Crown represents well over 150 years of tradition in New Zealand. Considering that tradition and history are the two factors making up a nation's identity, republicans are wrong to say that the monarchy is not a part of New Zealand's history, not it's future.

  • Brian, the monarchy is not a "fundamental safeguard". You can't name for me one instance where the Queen has actually intervened in the political process to act as a safeguard. That's because do to so contradicts your second point, that the Queen is "beyond party politics". How can the Queen – or indeed the Governor-General – be above politics when they intervene? The answer is they can't. The monarchy is constitutionally useless, it is not a constitutional safegaurd.

    Secondly, on the issue of leadership, Whaleoil raises a valid point: When has the Queen ever provided leadership in New Zealand? The answer is HM hasn't, because she's first and foremost the Queen of the UK. That position is filled by the virtual head of state, the Governor-General, who New Zealand taxpayers fund to the tune of c. $5m a year to do all the work of our actual head of state.

    Oh, and I love this line: "Royalty is for everyone, a President is just for yourself."Ah yes, the "You just want to be President" nonsense once again. Meh. I know a number of democrat-leaning Americans who still see their presidency as 'for them', despite the POTUS being a Republican (big R). Moreover, many Presidents often do act as the same sort of symbolic heads of state you find in constitutional monarchies – both sides of the divide in Ireland have a respect for the President of the Republic of Ireland, for example.

  • Only 150 years Brian? A couple of weeks ago you were saying that the British monarchy was over 1,000 years old... opps.

    In actual fact, the "New Zealand monarchy" is only 60 years old, since we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947. In any case, as I've said before, our parliamentary traditions is the actual source of our stability as a democracy.

    As for your comment on scandals, meh.

  • Brian

    Leiws, there are arguments, from you, that the Monarchy is a financial drain on gods own country, this is a huge misconception! New Zealanders do not, and have NEVER paid the Queen for her services to our country; however we simply cover the expenses of the Governor-General. While the Governor-General expenses do rack-up a modest bill (less than one dollar/tax payer/year), to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, people who query that sort of sum in the context of the over-all national budget know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.


  • AndyMoore

    To heck with you republicans.

    Unless the monarchy is becoming corrupt and tyranical, what's the problem with keeping this part of our culture?


    This is New Zealand.

  • Lewis

    "This is New Zealand"

    Exactly. This isn't Britain.  I'd also dispute that it's part of "our" culture.

  • Brian

    You would Lewis; you would also dispute Kiwis, being part of our culture, if it could help your case. 

    This is New Zealand, and New Zealanders have the final say about what they want for their country, you need to respect that.


  • Bearhunter

    "New Zealanders do not, and have NEVER paid the Queen for her services to our country; however we simply cover the expenses of the Governor-General. "


    But isn't the GG just an instrument of the Crown? In which case, we have been paying indirectly for the upkeep.  And as for your point that NZers have the final say on what happens here (and quite a few immigrants too, Brian, but they don't relly count, do they?) I shall remind you of that when NZ finally votes itself into a republic.

  • Brian

    You will be waiting a long, long time then Bearhunter, there is no "when" its "if"

  • Lewis

    Err, no – Kiwis (the bird at least) have nothing to do with the republic debate. 

    I support referendums on all constitutional issues, including the republic. Do you?



  • Lewis

    Firstly Brian, please quote to me when I have ever said that the monarchy is a "drain" on New Zealand?

    Secondly, we do actually pay for the Queen – for her Royal tours of New Zealand. The last one cost us about $500,000… which, incidently, would be about the same cost of printing voting forms to elect a president.

    As I have said, it isn't a question of the cost of the monarchy. What I did say was that it isn't a good use of taxpayers money to have an office that is in all but name our head of state while having an absentee head of state who doesn't preform the day-to-day duties of New Zealand's head of state, but another country – and is regarded as such by every other non-Commonwealth country in the world.

  • Bearhunter

    Brian, I waited 800 years for it to happen back home. I'll still be here when NZ comes to its senses.