Society/Culture Prince William

[John]

For example Edward VIII's abdication as King of Australia in 1936 needed the authorization of the Australian government for the succession to the Crown to be changed in Australia.

What would have happened if our Government had refuses his abdication?

 

[Roylion]

I would argue that this did not apply in 1936.

The Act was not adopted as Australian law until 1942.

Menzies declaration of war in 1939 also supports this premise.

But it was adopted in the UK in 1931. Britain still needed to seek Australian consent for the abdication to take effect in Australia, as the Statute said.

"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."

The Abdication Act did have Australia's consent.

BTW, there is a very colorful story surrounding the events leading up to the adoption of this Act, are you aware of it?

No. But do tell.

Which leads me to conclude that we did not have complete and full independence before this time. Would you agree?

Without a doubt. 1986 was the year Australia became truly independent.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

What would have happened if our Government had refuses his abdication?

Edward VIII would most likely still have been King of Australia, who his successor would have been i have no idea.

 

[Roylion]

What would have happened if our Government had refuses his abdication?

Most likely the personal union of the Crown of Australia and the Crown of Great Britain would have been separated. King Edward of Australia and King George of Great Britain. Great Britain and Ireland (the Irish Free State) had this situation in 1936, when Edward remained King of Ireland for one day extra than in Great Britain...until their "Executive Authority Act" was passed.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Speaking of the Crown of Australia would Queen Elizabeth technically be Queen Elizabeth I of Australia as the previous Queen Elizabeth wasn't Queen of Australia.

 

[Wally Carter]

No. But do tell.

Al Grassby says that the reason for the adoption of the Statute of Westminster "was because a couple of homosexuals in the Australian Navy were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, while the navy's flagship Australia was on duty in the Coral Sea. The Australian Government and courts were unable to intervene because the ships were under the control of the British Admiralty. When the Curtain government sought to intervene they were told by the British Prime Minister's office that the lack of sovereignty was all due to Australia failing to ratify the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Curtin lost no time in doing so and back-dated the ratification to 1939. The sailors did not die but were paroled after eight years."

Al Grassby. "Confessions of a Colonial"; in: David Headon, James Warden, and Bill Gammage (eds.) Crown or Country: The Traditions of Australian Republicanism, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW, 1994, p. 97.


We partially owe our independence to a couple of NTTAWWTs.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Al Grassby says that the reason for the adoption of the Statute of Westminster "was because a couple of homosexuals in the Australian Navy were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, while the navy's flagship Australia was on duty in the Coral Sea. The Australian Government and courts were unable to intervene because the ships were under the control of the British Admiralty. When the Curtain government sought to intervene they were told by the British Prime Minister's office that the lack of sovereignty was all due to Australia failing to ratify the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Curtin lost no time in doing so and back-dated the ratification to 1939. The sailors did not die but were paroled after eight years."

Al Grassby. "Confessions of a Colonial"; in: David Headon, James Warden, and Bill Gammage (eds.) Crown or Country: The Traditions of Australian Republicanism, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW, 1994, p. 97.


We partially owe our independence to a couple of NTTAWWTs.

You have to admit it does fit with the countries character.

 

[Wally Carter]

Speaking of the Crown of Australia would Queen Elizabeth technically be Queen Elizabeth I of Australia as the previous Queen Elizabeth wasn't Queen of Australia.

Nope.

The Royal Style and Title Act of 1953 distinctly refers to Elizabeth the Second.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth14i_doc_1953a.pdf

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Probably just to make it less confusing then even if not technically correct

 

[Wally Carter]

You have to admit it does fit with the countries character.

Yes, this also leads me to believe that the SOW gave no powers to Australia prior to its enactment (re 1936).

 

[Ted38]

I bet he's rapt to have inherited the early balding gene from his old man and his grandfather and isn't it odd that the younger brother hasn't. Or maybe his half brother?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Hes probably, more rapt about not being ginger though, you can do something about the baldness.

 

[medusala]

An even bigger towelling than he received on the Pommy crime wave in WA (non) thread.

Its amusing the way it's all Howard's fault that the Republicans couldnt decide on a half decent model.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

An even bigger towelling than he received on the Pommy crime wave in WA (non) thread.

Its amusing the way it's all Howard's fault that the Republicans couldnt decide on a half decent model.

LOL. Is that a fact?
I am damn certain that the thread got hijacked by constitutional semantisists who wanted a chapter and verse google argument over who won the war.
That might give you wood, however it leaves me quite flaccid.

Howard had a hand in the referendums demise, and it is only your right wing bias that denies you the ability to acknowlegde it.

Willy will be here tomorrow. Are you excited?

 

[medusala]

Howard had a hand in the referendums demise, and it is only your right wing bias that denies you the ability to acknowlegde it.

wow. Howard voted against it.

Why would you think he would campaign in favour of it?

The referendum was lost because the clowns in the republican movement picked a dud model

That was not Howards fault. It was the fault of the republicans.

They chose the model not him.

If you want to attempt to argue that there is a better system of government that constitutional monarchy then feel free to have a go.

It would be nice to hear something with a bit more substance than "our head of state lives in London".

 

[Wally Carter]

wow. Howard voted against it.

Why would you think he would campaign in favour of it?

The referendum was lost because the clowns in the republican movement picked a dud model

That was not Howards fault. It was the fault of the republicans.

They chose the model not him.

If you want to attempt to argue that there is a better system of government that constitutional monarchy then feel free to have a go.

It would be nice to hear something with a bit more substance than "our head of state lives in London".

You are aware that the Howard government hand picked 50% of the members that made up the constitutional convention, aren't you?

 

[Roylion]

You are aware that the Howard government hand picked 50% of the members that made up the constitutional convention, aren't you?

58% of the 76 Government appointed delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted for a republic. Those who abstained numbered 8 (11%) and those who voted against a republic numbered 24 (31%).

Of the twenty Federal politicians that were appointed by the Government, as part of their 76 appointed members, (including 12 Coalition MPs), 13 voted for a republic.

Of the twenty State politicians, appointed to the Convention by the Government, 16 voted for a Republic.

 

[Wally Carter]

Which model?

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Good grief, Sky News are covering his arrival live.

 

[Docker Clint]

Of course, those who were so ideologically opposed to the Republic had nothing to do at all with the structure of the proposed change and the questions to which they were related..
Nothing at all.
Thanks Rodent.

It was frustrating voting no on that referendum but wanting a republic.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Good grief, Sky News are covering his arrival live.

It's a brave news world.

 

[Roylion]

Which model?

The Convention delegates considered the four models through a process of voting, whereby the model receiving the lowest vote in each round of voting was knocked out until only one model remained.

The first model eliminated was the Hayden Model. (4 votes only. The bi-partisan model received the most - 59 votes)

In the second round of voting the Direct Election Model was eliminated, receiving 30 votes as against the 31 votes for the McGarvie Model. The bi-partisan model received the most votes - 58 votes)

In the third round the McGarvie Model was eliminated with 32 votes as against the 73 votes for the Bi-Partisan Appointment of the President Model 43 now voted for no model, 3 abstained) leaving the Bi-Partisan Appointment model as the Convention's preferred republican option.

I can even give you the names of who voted for each model in the last round.

So it was the bipartisan model that was put to the Australian people. On that basis the Republic Bill and the initial version of the referendum question was written by the Attorney -General, The question was altered by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, then considered by Cabinet, then by Parliament, where it was passed on the second attempt.

 

[medusala]

58% of the 76 Government appointed delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted for a republic. Those who abstained numbered 8 (11%) and those who voted against a republic numbered 24 (31%).

So one can quite logically say that Howard oversaw a stacking of the convention with delegates of a Republican tilt given there were disproportionately more of them than the public vote would infer.

 

[Wally Carter]

So one can quite logically say that Howard oversaw a stacking of the convention with delegates of a Republican tilt given there were disproportionately more of them than the public vote would infer.

A republican tilt that would return a colonial constitution with a couple of very minor changes.

I don't believe for one minute that Howard gave a stuff about the Queen, he was much more interested in overseeing a stacked deck that would entrench the status quo and give virtually no extra power to the people.

 

[Wally Carter]

The Convention delegates considered the four models through a process of voting, whereby the model receiving the lowest vote in each round of voting was knocked out until only one model remained.

The first model eliminated was the Hayden Model. (4 votes only. The bi-partisan model received the most - 59 votes)

In the second round of voting the Direct Election Model was eliminated, receiving 30 votes as against the 31 votes for the McGarvie Model. The bi-partisan model received the most votes - 58 votes)

In the third round the McGarvie Model was eliminated with 32 votes as against the 73 votes for the Bi-Partisan Appointment of the President Model 43 now voted for no model, 3 abstained) leaving the Bi-Partisan Appointment model as the Convention's preferred republican option.

I can even give you the names of who voted for each model in the last round.

So it was the bipartisan model that was put to the Australian people. On that basis the Republic Bill and the initial version of the referendum question was written by the Attorney -General, The question was altered by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, then considered by Cabinet, then by Parliament, where it was passed on the second attempt.

Howard stacked the deck to ensure the most watered down republican model was returned.