Society/Culture RIP Prince Philip

[Number37]

Its not 'x vs the Queen' in a literal sense.

Yes it is X v the Queen in a literal sense.

Back in the old days you would literally be standing in front of the Queen (or King) and the Queen or King would decide your fate.
Then the Queen said "ain't nobody got time for that" so she delegated responsibility to courts.....fast forward 1000 years and you're still up against the Queen, the Queen just has her peeps representin' for her.

 

[Roylion]

Bro, I don't think you have.


WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

I can assure you I have.

This is the preamble to the Constitution. All it says is that other colonies and possessions of the Queen may be admitted to the Commonwealth at some future date. They're not the private lands of the Queen. They refer to the Crown (which is personified by the Queen). The Queen is part of 'the Crown' and personifies 'the Crown'. Why is this difficult to understand?

Maybe this will convince you?

2. Act to extend to the Queen's successors

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Err...yes. So?

Convince me of what?

Or maybe this?

1. Legislative power

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Yes? So?

Or maybe this?


2. Governor-General

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

So?

None of this proves anything different to what I have already said.

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

 

[Roylion]

Yes it is X v the Queen in a literal sense.

No, it's not...other than the Queen is the 'personification of 'The Crown'. As in the preamble to the Australian Constitution.

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

Back in the old days you would literally be standing in front of the Queen (or King) and the Queen or King would decide your fate.

That's not correct either.

"Old days"? What are referring to exactly? 1,000 years ago? Anglo-Saxon England? Norman England? Tell me which and I'll explain how the judicial system worked back then.

Then the Queen said "ain't nobody got time for that" so she delegated responsibility to courts.....fast forward 1000 years and you're still up against the Queen, the Queen just has her peeps representin' for her.

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

Personified by the monarch (currently 'the Queen'...soon to be 'the King')

 

[andrewmillman]

Yes it is X v the Queen in a literal sense.

Back in the old days you would literally be standing in front of the Queen (or King) and the Queen or King would decide your fate.
Then the Queen said "ain't nobody got time for that" so she delegated responsibility to courts.....fast forward 1000 years and you're still up against the Queen, the Queen just has her peeps representin' for her.

I don't understand how you can write stuff like this that is factually and verifiably incorrect (and how your admirers can similarly like it despite it being verifiably incorrect).

 

[Number37]

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

What does "Commonwealth UNDER THE CROWN" mean?
The Commonwealth (Executive, Leglislature, Judiciary) as per the Constitution clearly sits underneath, and separate to, The Crown.

The Legislature and the Executive both need to get ascension from the Queen.
Every bill that passes Parliament specifically says that it only comes into effect after the Queen has signed off on it.
That specifically means nothing becomes law until the Queen agrees to make it law.

The leader of the party who holds a majority on the floor of the House of Reps has to go see the Queen's rep (the GG) to ask for permission to form govt.
To dissolve Parliament, the PM goes to visit the Queen's rep to ask for permission to hold an election.

Not figuratively. The Queen has to sign off. She has to sign on the dotted line.
The GG has the power to unilaterally dissolve both Houses and call an election.



The Crown has many Commonwealths.

The Crown is an entire system, sure, but it all leads directly to the Queen, sitting at the top.

 

[Roylion]

What does "Commonwealth UNDER THE CROWN" mean?
The Commonwealth (Executive, Leglislature, Judiciary) as per the Constitution clearly sits underneath, and separate to, The Crown.

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

The Queen is part of the Executive. She personifies the Crown.

The Legislature and the Executive both need to get ascension from the Queen.
Every bill that passes Parliament specifically says that it only comes into effect after the Queen has signed off on it.
That specifically means nothing becomes law until the Queen agrees to make it law.

Or the Governor-General exercising the Crown's powers which are vested in the Queen.

The leader of the party who holds a majority on the floor of the House of Reps has to go see the Queen's rep (the GG) to ask for permission to form govt.
To dissolve Parliament, the PM goes to visit the Queen's rep to ask for permission to hold an election.

Not figuratively. The Queen has to sign off. She has to sign on the dotted line.
The GG has the power to unilaterally dissolve both Houses and call an election.

Yes? So? The Executive. Who rarely withholds assent. What's your point?

The Crown is an entire system, sure, but it all leads directly to the Queen, sitting at the top.

Who is bound by the Constitution.

 

[Number37]

I don't understand how you can write stuff like this that is factually and verifiably incorrect (and how your admirers can similarly like it despite it being verifiably incorrect).

Way back before we classified laws into things like "murder" and "theft" all crimes were classified as breaches of the peace.
The plaintiff in all cases of breaches of the peace was the King. R v ...
All cases for breach of the peace were heard by the King's Bench. The Kings bench was made up of the King's advisors.

Before that, there was the Curia Regis. Essentially just a travelling circus of the King. Basically, Courts weren't in one place, they travelled wherever the King went.
There is a famous Torts case where the defendant got off because he declared "were it not assize time, I would cut you". Assize time was when the King rolled into town and everyone was on their best behaviour. In these times, you actually fronted the King.

 

[Number37]

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

Legal embodiment?
What does that mean?

 

[Number37]

'The Crown' is the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.

The Queen is part of the Executive. She personifies the Crown.



Or the Governor-General exercising the Crown's powers which are vested in the Queen.



Yes? So? The Executive. Who rarely withholds assent. What's your point?



Who is bound by the Constitution.

Way back when there was the Curia Regis.
From the Curia Regis springs every govt institution we have today.
Slowly, over time, the King got jack of doing everything himself & there was also the time Richard I took off and they had to find a way to keep things moving along, so all these institutions started springing up to take up the task of what we would call govt.
Unsurprisingly the Churchies got involved with a bit of brown tongueing the King to get themselves some power.

Long story short, all our institutions are here because the Queen couldn't be F'd dealing with everybody's sh*t, everyday. Better things to do, like 2000 charities.
Everybody and every institution is essentially the Queen's bitch. She owns everything & there's nothing we can do about it.

Why do you think her pic is on all our currency?

 

[Roylion]

Way back when there was the Curia Regis.

The Curia Regis was effectively the King's council and did the business of state whether legislative, judicial, or diplomatic. The king would travel throughout the land and on occasions hear suitors, but that was not necessariy to dispense justice.

There were also communal courts such as the hundreds court and shire courts.

Gradually the curia regis began to branch off into entities which formed into other institutions, including the Cabinet, the Star Chamber, Chancery, and others. One of the first was the exchequer, which specialised in the financial matters of government. They also include Parliament from 1236 onwards and the Privy Council

Slowly, over time, the King got jack of doing everything himself

The King never did everything himself.

& there was also the time Richard I took off and they had to find a way to keep things moving along, so all these institutions started springing up to take up the task of what we would call govt.

Long story short, all our institutions are here because the Queen couldn't be F'd dealing with everybody's sh*t, everyday. Better things to do, like 2000 charities.

You should do more reading on the evolutin of an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

She owns everything & there's nothing we can do about it.

She doesn't "own" everything.

Why do you think her pic is on all our currency?

Because she personifies the Crown (i.e the nation)

 

[Roylion]

Assize time was when the King rolled into town and everyone was on their best behaviour. In these times, you actually fronted the King.

Assize courts were travelling courts. From 1293, sets of judges toured across four circuits; from 1328, six circuits. known as "justices of assize". Assize-time is when the judges were in the town for court sessions...not when the King was.

 

[Number37]

The Queen is part of the Executive. She personifies the Crown.

She holds the power.
Appoints Ministers
Commands the military.

All of this despite the Australia Act 1986.



61. Executive power

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

64. Ministers of State

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

68. Command of naval and military forces

The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

 

[Number37]

The Curia Regis was effectively the King's council and did the business of state whether legislative, judicial, or diplomatic. The king would travel throughout the land and on occasions hear suitors, but that was not necessariy to dispense justice.

There were also communal courts such as the hundreds court and shire courts.

Gradually the curia regis began to branch off into entities which formed into other institutions, including the Cabinet, the Star Chamber, Chancery, and others. One of the first was the exchequer, which specialised in the financial matters of government. They also include Parliament from 1236 onwards and the Privy Council



The King never did everything himself.





You should do more reading on the evolutin of an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.



She doesn't "own" everything.



Because she personifies the Crown (i.e the nation)

Oh Jeebus.
Wikipedia is not always your friend.

 

[Roylion]

Oh Jeebus.
Wikipedia is not always your friend.

Which part is incorrect?

 

[Roylion]

She holds the power.

The reserve powers vested in the person of the Queen of Australia are exercised by the Governor-General of Australia

Appoints Ministers

Ministers are appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the cabinet. In practice, the Federal Executive Council meets solely to endorse and give legal force to decisions already made by the Cabinet. The Federal Executive Council was established by the Constitution to advise the Crown.

Any reference to the Governor-General in Council in the Constitution or elsewhere refers to the Governor-General acting on and with the advice of the Executive Council. The Acts Interpretation Act provides that where the Governor-General is referred to in an Act, the reference shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be read as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Executive Council.

Commands the military.

Constitutionally, the Governor-General of Australia, is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. However, in practice, the Australian Government exercises executive power via the Federal Executive Council

All of this despite the Australia Act 1986.

The Queen is the Queen of Australia

61. Executive power

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

See above.

64. Ministers of State

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

See above

68. Command of naval and military forces

The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

See above.

 

[Number37]

The reserve powers of the Queen of Australia are vested in the Governor-General of Australia



Ministers are appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the cabinet. In practice, the Federal Executive Council meets solely to endorse and give legal force to decisions already made by the Cabinet. The Federal Executive Council was established by the Constitution to advise the Crown.

Any reference to the Governor-General in Council in the Constitution or elsewhere refers to the Governor-General acting on and with the advice of the Executive Council. The Acts Interpretation Act provides that where the Governor-General is referred to in an Act, the reference shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be read as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Executive Council.



Constitutionally, the Governor-General of Australia, is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. However, in practice, the Australian Government exercises executive power via the Federal Executive Council



The Queen is the Queen of Australia



See above.



See above



See above.

The Queen or her rep, the GG, is required to give assent to all legislation. Legislation is NOT valid unless, and until, the Queen (GG) signs off on it.
What happens if the Queen or the GG refuses to give assent to a piece of legislation?

Can't go to court and say the GG is being a prat, it is a valid piece of legislation, please declare it so.
Australian courts are not permitted to give advisory judgments. They can only provide judgments on valid legislation. Hasn't been signed by the GG therefore not valid legislation.

Can the Fed Exec Council sue the GG for ignoring their advice?
Nope. The GG is the Queen and the Queen cannot be sued, by anyone.


The GG acts 'on advice' from the Executive Council, by CONVENTION. There's no rules, just conventions. Nothing stopping the GG or the Queen from saying yeah nah F the Exec Council.

Historically, every public servant has served at the pleasure of the Queen. Sure, nowadays there is number of degrees of separation between the Queen and any public servant, but it doesn't change the fact that they're all still serving at her pleasure.

 

[Roylion]

The Queen or her rep, the GG, is required to give assent to all legislation. Legislation is NOT valid unless, and until, the Queen (GG) signs off on it.
What happens if the Queen or the GG refuses to give assent to a piece of legislation?

It doesnt pass. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, however royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Royal assent would only be refused if the law violated the Constitution.

For example, Royal assent has not been withheld for a Bill backed by the Government in the United Kingdom since 1708.

 

[Number37]

It doesnt pass. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, however royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Royal assent would only be refused if the law violated the Constitution.

For example, Royal assent has not been withheld for a Bill backed by the Government in the United Kingdom since 1708.

What's stops the GG or the Queen from not assenting?
What are the consequences if she refuses?

Nothing stopping her.
No consequences.
Nothing anybody can do about it.

The point is that the whole thing only stands up as long as the Queen plays ball. If she doesn't play ball then the only thing left standing is....the Queen.
Were that to happen it would take a revolution to take the Crown & The Crown, from her.
It's been almost a thousand years, so we're due a revolution.

 

[Pessimistic]

Apparently the Queen never (or rarely) gets presented with something she doesn't like to sign. Not sure how that works when people aren't supposed to talk to people in 'separation of powers'

 

[Roylion]

What's stops the GG or the Queen from not assenting?

The monarch and her representatives are bound by the Constitution and would almost have no reason to wthhold assent to laws passed by the legislature, unless the Bills were deemed unconstitutional. Under modern constitutional conventions, the monarch generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. Only in a dire political emergency or on advice of government would assent be withheld.

For example a controversial bill passed against the will of the government (say if they had a parliamenary minority), that government could advise the monarch or governor-general that the bill be refused royal assent. However if it has been passed by both House of Parliament and was not in violation of the Constitution, there would be no reason for the monarch to refuse assent. Ministers might advise the Queen to refuse assent where a private member’s bill had passed both Houses, perhaps on a free vote but which ministers opposed.

The monarch could also disregard the government’s advice on a bill it disagreed with because the government is no longer responsible (in other words they cannot provide a responsible governmentO, due to its defeat on what must be regarded as an important legislative measure. The monarch is therefore not obliged to accept the advice of ministers who have ceased to be responsible.

A new government that has the confidence of the House (in other words can provide responsible government) and objects to a bill passed… by a defeated predecessor… then its advice to refuse assent to a bill is accepted.

If a serious error is discovered in the bill then refusal of assent may also properly be advised and exercised.

In a majority government scenario, the monarch would rarely if ever refuse royal assent. In a minority government scenario, the role of the momarch becomes more important.

The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians.

What are the consequences if she refuses?

Nothing stopping her.
No consequences.
Nothing anybody can do about it.

Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, the whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians.

The point is that the whole thing only stands up as long as the Queen plays ball.

The Queen is not an absolute monarch. She is a Constitutional monarch who has reserve powers vested in her person and exercises them but rarely to protect the Constitution and/or acting on the advice of her Ministers, elected by the people.

Were that to happen it would take a revolution to take the Crown & The Crown, from her.

A simple referendum would occur for a Constitutional monarchy

It's been almost a thousand years, so we're due a revolution.

Revolutions have mostly occurred against absolute monarchs.

 

[Number37]

The monarch and her representatives are bound by the Constitution and would almost have no reason to wthhold assent to laws passed by the legislature, unless the Bills were deemed unconstitutional. Under modern constitutional conventions, the monarch generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. Only in a dire political emergency or on advice of government would assent be withheld.

For example a controversial bill passed against the will of the government (say if they had a parliamenary minority), that government could advise the monarch or governor-general that the bill be refused royal assent. However if it has been passed by both House of Parliament and was not in violation of the Constitution, there would be no reason for the monarch to refuse assent. Ministers might advise the Queen to refuse assent where a private member’s bill had passed both Houses, perhaps on a free vote but which ministers opposed.

The monarch could also disregard the government’s advice on a bill it disagreed with because the government is no longer responsible (in other words they cannot provide a responsible governmentO, due to its defeat on what must be regarded as an important legislative measure. The monarch is therefore not obliged to accept the advice of ministers who have ceased to be responsible.

A new government that has the confidence of the House (in other words can provide responsible government) and objects to a bill passed… by a defeated predecessor… then its advice to refuse assent to a bill is accepted.

If a serious error is discovered in the bill then refusal of assent may also properly be advised and exercised.

In a majority government scenario, the monarch would rarely if ever refuse royal assent. In a minority government scenario, the role of the momarch becomes more important.

The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her represntatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians.




Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, the whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her represntatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians.



The Queen is not an absolute monarch. She is a Constitutional monarch who has reserve powers vested in her person and exercises them but rarely to protect the Constitution and/or acting on the advice of her Ministers, elected by the people.

Were that to happen it would take a revolution to take the Crown & The Crown, from her.

A simple referendum would occur for a Constitutional monarchy



Revolutions have mostly occurred against absolute monarchs.

OK. Cool.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Thanks, Roylion , all of this is most illuminating. Should be taught in schools. Haha.

 

[Roylion]

Thanks, Roylion , all of this is most illuminating. Should be taught in schools. Haha.

Like the "real history of Australia"?

 

[Present Not Past]

Isn't that quaint. Prince Andrew wants to play dress ups at Phillip's funeral.
He wants to go dressed up as a Vice Admiral in the RN.
How the * does a screw-up like him hold a rank of Vice Admiral.

Prince Andrew’s funeral demand to Queen

Prince Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip’s funeral — despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.

www.news.com.au

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Isn't that quaint. Prince Andrew wants to play dress ups at Phillip's funeral.
He wants to go dressed up as a Vice Admiral in the RN.
How the fu** does a screw-up like him hold a rank of Vice Admiral.

Prince Andrew’s funeral demand to Queen

Prince Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip’s funeral — despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.

www.news.com.au

I heard this morning that no members of the family will wear military uniforms.