Politics The Republic Debate

[skilts]

I'm trying to wind Roy up just a little (and failing).

Roy is very knowledgeable though and I do enjoy reading and learning from his input.

I do envy those who were/are taught history by him.

 

[Moo]

I do envy those who were/are taught history by him.

Are you dressed as a school girl when you think about this?

 

[skilts]

Are you dressed as a school girl when you think about this?

How do you know so much about my life?

 

[Roylion]

How do you know so much about my life?

 

[Moo]

How do you know so much about my life?

Switch your Skype off.....it's on broadcast

 

[skilts]

Switch your Skype off.....it's on broadcast

If I did that, ASIO would feel bereft. Hello boys.

 

[Elroo]

Well the Young Liberal Federal President josh Manuatu undertook a trainwreck of a debate on RN with Australian Republican Movement Chairman Peter John FitzSimons. Manuatu when asked if he throught being a member of the Royal family somehow made them better than everybody else, replied that -

“There is a divinity of the sovereign.”

And:

“The Church of England, and Christianity generally but especially in the Church of England, believes that the sovereign is gifted that for by God … I believe that.”

https://tasmaniantimes.com/2018/11/monarchist-boasts-that-the-crown-divides-australia-by-creed/

So the head of the Young Liberals believe the Royal Family are better than us mortals, and rule through the devine right of a God???

 

[Taylor]

There has always been a claim to have been chosen by a divine power. It is the church and crown reinforcing each other's position and influence. The church say the king is chosen by god and that why his family won the battles that put them on the throne, the king keeps the church on side.

That is really basic history there, you shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Gough]

That gosh darn aren't they just like us PR blitz led by Willnkate and Harrynmeghan (let go of him love, you bagged a Royal, we get it) isn't really working.

 

[Pessimistic]

I guess it was just bad luck our republican enthusiasm coincided in history with Useless turnbull thinking he could pull it off.

best thing for us about the monarchy is someone else pays to support their expensive institution

 

[The Speaker]

That gosh darn aren't they just like us PR blitz led by Willnkate and Harrynmeghan (let go of him love, you bagged a Royal, we get it) isn't really working.

On you? Not surprising.

 

[tandino]

That gosh darn aren't they just like us PR blitz led by Willnkate and Harrynmeghan (let go of him love, you bagged a Royal, we get it) isn't really working.

Would still win a popularity contest up against Turnbull, Bill and the bandana man.

The movement needs to pick some more likeable advocates.

 

[medusala]

That gosh darn aren't they just like us PR blitz led by Willnkate and Harrynmeghan (let go of him love, you bagged a Royal, we get it) isn't really working.

I sense no great love for her in the UK, the wedding was an embarrassment she wont recover from quickly.

NB the ex husband has made a substantial upgrade.

 

[Taylor]

I sense no great love for her in the UK, the wedding was an embarrassment she wont recover from quickly.

NB the ex husband has made a substantial upgrade.

She definitely has a much broader pair-sonality.

 

[Richard Pryor]

There has always been a claim to have been chosen by a divine power. It is the church and crown reinforcing each other's position and influence. The church say the king is chosen by god and that why his family won the battles that put them on the throne, the king keeps the church on side.

That is really basic history there, you shouldn't be surprised.

It is dissonant how anachronistic it is when you see it stated in plain terms even when you know it though. Also weird how for all the talk of divinity the foundation of the Church of England is tied up in Henry VIII wanting to trade in his wife for a newer model.

Best argument against a Republic is that the Queen isn't going to embarrass the Country like a hypothetical President might. When we have King Charles III there might be a better chance of a Republic.

 

[Taylor]

It is dissonant how anachronistic it is when you see it stated in plain terms even when you know it though. Also weird how for all the talk of divinity the foundation of the Church of England is tied up in Henry VIII wanting to trade in his wife for a newer model.

Best argument against a Republic is that the Queen isn't going to embarrass the Country like a hypothetical President might. When we have King Charles III there might be a better chance of a Republic.

If I'm trying to sell the idea of a new monarch to keep the ball rolling I'm choosing William and ensuring the nation has a beautiful queen, those two could be in the job for fifty years, nice and stable.

Charles doesn't inspire. But what benefit does Australia in the family bring to the royal family?

 

[Gough]

If I'm trying to sell the idea of a new monarch to keep the ball rolling I'm choosing William and ensuring the nation has a beautiful queen, those two could be in the job for fifty years, nice and stable.

Charles doesn't inspire. But what benefit does Australia in the family bring to the royal family?

But that's at odds with the whole divine right bollocks, supposedly the rationale behind the Saxe-Coburg Gotha House occupying Buck House and not you or I. You can't just pick and choose who has that depending who inspires you.

 

[Richard Pryor]

But that's at odds with the whole divine right bollocks, supposedly the rationale behind the Saxe-Coburg Gotha House occupying Buck House and not you or I. You can't just pick and choose who has that depending who inspires you.

To be fair there was a fair amount of picking and choosing involved when James II went Catholic. Maybe the Australian Monarchists can deploy Tony Abbott to convert Charles and secure the throne for Willie.

 

[Taylor]

But that's at odds with the whole divine right bollocks, supposedly the rationale behind the Saxe-Coburg Gotha House occupying Buck House and not you or I. You can't just pick and choose who has that depending who inspires you.

It would be their family making the decision, not anyone else so that power is still utilised.

Elizabeth would call a meeting and agree to the dual abdication.

 

[Roylion]

So the head of the Young Liberals believe the Royal Family are better than us mortals, and rule through the devine right of a God???

Divine Right asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The Australian monarch is of course a constitutional monarch and is bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed within an established legal framework; in this case the Australian Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 (the last of which determines the succession).

 

[The Speaker]

Overlooking Charles because he isn't as popular of a celebrity as his mother or his sons is silly. Constitutional monarchs are there as a safety valve. They don't need to be 'inspiring' to do this.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Overlooking Charles because he isn't as popular of a celebrity as his mother or his sons is silly. Constitutional monarchs are there as a safety valve. They don't need to be 'inspiring' to do this.

I don't think the concerns are because he isn't an inspiring celebrity, if anything it's the opposite. The Queen has endured because of her general non-participation in public discourse and absence of controversy, whereas Charles does stuff like advocating homeopathy and comparing Putin to Hitler.

Of course he would presumably reign it in as King, but if he doesn't I can see the Republic sentiment gaining steam.

 

[Gough]

Overlooking Charles because he isn't as popular of a celebrity as his mother or his sons is silly. Constitutional monarchs are there as a safety valve. They don't need to be 'inspiring' to do this.

You know my views on the monarchy but I agree with this. If stability is the reason for a monarchy than the disregarding of tradition and precedent on the basis of public opinion strikes at the heart of the institution.

 

[The Speaker]

I don't think the concerns are because he isn't an inspiring celebrity, if anything it's the opposite. The Queen has endured because of her general non-participation in public discourse and absence of controversy, whereas Charles does stuff like advocating homeopathy and comparing Putin to Hitler.

I don't think his apparent appreciation for homeopathy matters in the slightest to his ability to be a monarch.

His comment on Putin reflect the celebritisation of the monarchy, because they would not have been reported given the circumstances they were made in once upon a time.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I don't think his apparent appreciation for homeopathy matters in the slightest to his ability to be a monarch.

His comment on Putin reflect the celebritisation of the monarchy, because they would not have been reported given the circumstances they were made in once upon a time.

I think the Kaiser Wilhelm/Daily Telegraph incident says otherwise. While obviously the consequences in the modern era wouldn't be as drastic as that having a King put their foot in their mouth is still something that would be politically damaging.

For the record I don't think Charles should be skipped, but I do think his outspokenness (relative to the Queen) could result in a blunder that stirs up support for an Australian Republic in the future, whereas William seems less likely to blunder.

For the record pt II, on Monarchy itself, while I have an aversion to the 'Divine Right' concept, recently I have been thinking it is probably preferable to a Presidency. For one it seems to me to be be far more incorruptible, there is no real incentive for the Monarch to engage in partisanship as not doing so is far more advantageous to their position than any bribe could be. The situation in Sri Lanka does not seem possible (at least to the same extent) with our current system.