Messenger
No, I’m just disappointed
He’s still dead, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Holy moly. Again with the strawman.
I'm not asking you why would she, or whether people will like it, or whether it interferes with responsible govt.
I am asking what happens when she does.
What was their purpose and what relevance does it have to a discussion about monarchic power?
Try to steer clear of the strawmen, if you can.
For the third time.
If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force.
William the Conqueror and Ethelred II were absolute monarchs. The Queen is a constitutional monarch. What absolute monarchs did 1,000 years ago has little relevance to today.
Well derr, we know that.
You're again avoiding the question.
Couldn't find an answer on Wiki?
I never said anything about Ethelred.
I ask about the Danegeld.
What happened 1000 years ago has everything to do with where we are today.
Domesday Book---Danegeld---Divine Right of Kings---Magna Carta---Constitutions---Parliaments.
I teach History and Politics. Medieval English history is my speciality.
Your question was
“what if she witholds assent?“
And I have answered:
If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force.
If that is not the answer you’re looking for then you need to rephrase your question.
Do you know what the Danegeld is and who issued the order to collect it? You’ve brought it up for some obscure point in talking about the monarchy. Ethelred II first collected the Danegeld (although there had been periodic tributes to the Danes beforehand) and then under the Norman kings the Danegeld evolved into a land tax before being discontinued in the twelfth century.
So? What’s your point?
An absolute monarchy evolved into a constitutional Monarchy with limitations and restrictions on their power.
Yes and?
You know what the question was, you're just strawman-ing again.
What can anyone do about it?
Nothing.
Queen/The Crown/Monarch (all one & the same) is ubiquitously powerful.
I mentioned the Domesday Book and Danegeld together.
Domesday Book was to catch the tax dodgers.
The knowledge gained from the exercise was also used to divvy up land. Kniggas who fought with/for the King/s gots to be paid.
That's the first thing.
The second thing.... it precipitated action from those both paying the tax and getting land taken away...which led to the Magna Carta...Constitutions bla-bla-bla
Section 51 (xxxi) Australian Constitution.
Expressly recognises that the Parliament can take your property....you can't stop them from taking your property, but you can demand it be on just terms.
<on a side note, Bob Katter, for all his craziness, actually proposed an amendment to this section to stop people getting ripped off with low-ball valuations>
You think that today has nothing to do with what happened 1000 years ago.
There are lots of laws we have as a direct result of what happened 1000 years ago. The most obvious is the actual Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to bind/reign in the lawmakers (parliament/govt/Executive).
Only to the extent that the monarch/The Crown/Queen plays ball is the monarch/The Crown/Queen bound by the Constitution.
No kidding.
Once again. The people, through the Parliament, can remove the monarch and establish a republic. A constitutional monarchy's power is derived from the people. And as such the people can change the constitution to remove the monarch. If the monarch is arbitrarily obstructing responsible government (through the witholding of royal assent) then he/she is not fulfiling the requirements of the office of monarch and therefore might be removed. So the arbitrary use of veto is simply not going to happen. It's one of tbe many checks and balance inherent in the system.
The monarch can be removed. You know that as well as I do. We voted on whether to do that in 1999. Had the Australian people voted in favour of that in 1999, then the Bill to bring an end to the Australian Crown and establish a republic would have had to have Royal Assent. The Queen would have had no choice but to give that assent, bringing an end to her reign as Queen of Australia and would have established a republic.
If you have a point you're not explaining it very clearly.
Strawman
Strawman.
More a case of you refusing to accept the point that I am making at the same time as ignoring history.
Your standard response across a range of topics for when you don’t have (or understand) a counter argument or you don’t get the answer you want. Seems to be your favourite word on these boards.
The point you are making is obscure, and poorly articulated. If you truly understand the point you are making (which I doubt) try making it clearer.
First:
Strawman is my favourite word, particularly here on Bigfooty.
Unattributed block quotes from Wikipedia unfortunately haven't swayed me, others may have been swayed.
The point I made is very clear.
Now that a decent interval has passed, we can recall Prince Philip more correctly as a relic of ancient European internecine royalty down to its last soul, a purveyor of horses and hounds, shooting and carriages, with a fine pedigree in offensive, racist remarks. In the coded language of his death, these unfortunate traits were recast as ‘light-hearted’, ‘humorous’, ‘direct’, and always and only termed ‘gaffes’. The senior Nazi positions of his sisters and brothers-in-law, banned from his wedding to Princess Elizabeth in 1947 given its proximity to the war, were hidden in the oblique melange of ‘German relatives’ or ‘family connections’.
Stripping away the façade of familiarity and the Prince as ‘one of us’, the simple fact is that the royal family is not one of us and never can be. This is not just a statement of political fact it is a legal one, acknowledging the unique privileges and prerogatives of royal blood, including even exemptions from the law itself. Philip’s elevation to Prince, a title bestowed by the Queen in 1957, ‘lifted him beyond the range of a subpoena’ in the UK just as it does Prince Andrew, which is particularly significant given his current predicament. The Queen is beyond the reach of the law under sovereign immunity, as ‘civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign’. The royal family is exempt from Freedom of Information laws and exercises iron-clad secrecy over its activities, with its own Royal Archives to privately house any documents it considers ‘personal’, away from public view.
Fancy that, the genius whom put all her eggs in the 'palace letters' basket and got humiliated when they turned out to be nothingburgers has an axe to grind with the institution and family.Fair to say, Jenny Hocking, emeritus professor at Monash University, isn't a fan of the late privileged Prince.
And I'm sure you actually believe that to be so, Drewie.Fancy that, the genius whom put all her eggs in the 'palace letters' basket and got humiliated when they turned out to be nothingburgers has an axe to grind with the institution and family.
Sure is. Standard reply from you anytime you don't have a reply or can't mount a counter argument.
I dont care if you've been 'swayed' or not.
You don't have a point. If you don't understand by now how some absolute monarchies evolved into constitutional monarchies and the limitations on their reserve powers, then I can't help you any further. It's not that hard to understand.
According to Wikipedia ...If only we had voted to be a republic then we wouldn't have to worry about monarchies...absolute, constitutional or otherwise.
Aside from it stating the bleeding obvious it was a rather excellent point. Wiki's are awesome.
If that doesn't sway people then I am 100% sure that you will drum up another Wiki inspired strawman.
Look, if you don’t understand the relevance of my point just say so. It’s clear why the monarch won’t arbitrarily withhold royal assent to obstruct responsible government.
You don’t even know what a strawman is.
What the F did we need the Magna Carta for, monarch's would never arbitrarily go against the will of the people.
Monarch's have always played ball, look at history, all monarch's have always dutifully complied with the will of the people, except of course on that odd occasion when they didn't.
What's the big deal about a revolution anyway?
All excellent points RoyLion, you should be like a history teacher or something....but it doesn't address what I asked.
You can keep answering your own questions, that's all cool bro.
If you can't find an answer to the question that I asked on Wikipedia, that's all cool too bro.
You asked (and I'll quote your question again)
“What if she witholds assent?“
And I've answered twice: "If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force."
Once again. The Magna Carta was a royal charter. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) and church rights. The "Great Charter" promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. So it was about the lord / vassal relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.
No sh*t sherlock, a bill requires royal assent to come into force. No royal assent no coming into force.
We already established that waaaaaay back at the start.
But you needed to go back before that so you could offer your strawman.
And you know that wasn't the question.
The question was....What can anyone do about it?
Anything interesting, or just some more tangential nonsense about monarchies absolute or constitutional.
Your understanding of the Magna Carta is disturbingly poor for a history teacher.
"TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM WE HAVE ALSO GRANTED....ALL THE LIBERTIES WRITTEN OUT BELOW"
Once again. The Magna Carta was a royal charter. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) and church rights.
Oh yes? And tell me who the word "freeman" was referring to in 1214? I'll give you a clue. It was referring to less than 10% of the entire population of England.
So it was about the lord / vassal relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.
First it was barons n churchies...
Now it's 10% of the pop...
I wonder if the barons answered to anybody?
I wonder who it was that pushed the barons to push the King?
Do you reckon some of the peeps might have suggested to the barons that they might shape up or they would be overthrown?
I wonder if there was ever an occasion in history where the peeps said shape up or we'll ship you out?
Do you reckon that the council of 25 barons sounds a lot like a parliament?
Do you reckon the liberties sound a lot like a Bill of Rights?
Can you see any resemblance to a separation of powers in the Magna Carta?
Do you reckon that the Barons n Churchies over time evolved into the House of Lords?
Do you reckon that over time the peeps agitated more for a direct voice, maybe something like a House of Commons?
So what's your point?