Society/Culture RIP Prince Philip

[Messenger]

He’s still dead, right?

 

[Roylion]

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.

For the third time.

If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force.

What was their purpose and what relevance does it have to a discussion about monarchic power?

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.

And you accuse me of a strawman.

Try to steer clear of the strawmen, if you can.

Take your own advice.

 

[Number37]

For the third time.

If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force.

Well derr, we know that.
You're again avoiding the question.
Couldn't find an answer on Wiki?

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.

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.

 

[Roylion]

Well derr, we know that.
You're again avoiding the question.
Couldn't find an answer on Wiki?

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.

I never said anything about Ethelred.
I ask about the Danegeld.

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?

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.

An absolute monarchy evolved into a constitutional Monarchy with limitations and restrictions on their power.

Yes and?

 

[Number37]

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?

Teaching kids stuff from Wiki, tut-tut.

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.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Not that I'm conservative, far from it, or that I give two s**t about Phillip. He died two weeks ago and the usual suspects to show how 'woke and 'edgy' they are are winning everyone over by pissing all over his grave the whole time.

Stay classy.

 

[Roylion]

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.

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.

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 then he/she is not fulfilling the requirements of the office of monarch and therefore can be removed. So the arbitrary use of veto (refusal to give royal assent either by the Queen or the Governor-General is simply not going to happen arbitrarily or on a whim. It's one of the many checks and balance inherent in the system.

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.

So?

Gee, an absolute monarch wants to know details of his subjects so he can tax them effectively. Amazing.

Land was 'Divvied" up before the Domesday book in any case. William became King of England in 1066. The Domesday book was in 1086.

If you have a point you're not explaining it very clearly.

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

The Magna Carta is a royal charter. One of many. It was written to protect baronial and church rights.

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.

Did I say that?

What connection are you trying to make between the Danegeld / Domesday book and the modern Constitutional monarchy?

Because any point connecting the two that you are trying to make is unclear.

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.

 

[Leeda]

lol...we are all digressing from the main point...
he wore the knight's sword and defended his wife.. we all get old and we all get to doing something we aren't
up to..

thanks people for the history tutorial... no really I enjoyed it..

 

[Number37]

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.

Strawman

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.

Strawman.

If you have a point you're not explaining it very clearly.

More a case of you refusing to accept the point that I am making at the same time as ignoring history.

 

[Roylion]

Strawman

Strawman.

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.

More a case of you refusing to accept the point that I am making at the same time as ignoring history.

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.

 

[Number37]

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.

First:

Strawman is my favourite word, particularly here on Bigfooty.

Me: The sky is purple with pink polka dots.
Bigfooty user: You're wrong. If the dinosaurs were around they would love bananas.


Second:

You don't need to provide me with an answer bro.

Third:

Unattributed block quotes from Wikipedia unfortunately haven't swayed me, others may have been swayed.

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.

Fourth:
The point I made is very clear.

 

[Roylion]

First:

Strawman is my favourite word, particularly here on Bigfooty.

Sure is. Standard reply from you anytime you don't have a reply or can't mount a counter argument.

Unattributed block quotes from Wikipedia unfortunately haven't swayed me, others may have been swayed.

I dont care if you've been 'swayed' or not.

The point I made is very clear.

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.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Fair to say, Jenny Hocking, emeritus professor at Monash University, isn't a fan of the late privileged Prince.

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.

https://twitter.com/palaceletters

 

[andrewmillman]

Fair to say, Jenny Hocking, emeritus professor at Monash University, isn't a fan of the late privileged Prince.

https://twitter.com/palaceletters

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.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

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.

And I'm sure you actually believe that to be so, Drewie.

 

[Roylion]

Hocking is a republican so not suprising. She's on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement.

 

[Number37]

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.

 

[Roylion]

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.

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.

If that doesn't sway people then I am 100% sure that you will drum up another Wiki inspired strawman.

You don’t even know what a strawman is.

 

[Number37]

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? Revolutions don't mean sh*t because Wikipedia says...

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.

There's no right or wrong answer, it's all hypothetical.

 

[Roylion]

What the F did we need the Magna Carta for, monarch's would never arbitrarily go against the will of the people.

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.

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.

Do you really understand the difference between an absolute monarch (such as those that existed in feudal times) and a modern constitutional monarchy that exists in modern democracies?

What's the big deal about a revolution anyway?

I teach 'Revolutions' (French, Russian and occasionally American) at a senior level and have done so for the best part of nearly twenty years. What do you want to know?

In fact I'm teaching today about the liberal phase of the French Revolution and the attempts by the National Constituent Assembly to limit the powers of Louis XVI under their new Constitution (which became the Constitution of 1791) and thereby ending his absolutism. This would turn him of course into a constitutional monarch. The study of Louis XVI’s power of veto (i.e. his royal assent) under the new constitution is particularly interesting.

All excellent points RoyLion, you should be like a history teacher or something....but it doesn't address what I asked.

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."

You can keep answering your own questions, that's all cool bro.

I don't have any questions.

If you can't find an answer to the question that I asked on Wikipedia, that's all cool too bro.

I've answered your question. See above.

 

[Number37]

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."

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?

What does Wiki say? Anything interesting, or just some more tangential nonsense about monarchies absolute or constitutional.

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.

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"

 

[Roylion]

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.

Your question is answered then.

But you needed to go back before that so you could offer your strawman.

I didn't go back anywhere. You did that. I've clearly been talking about a modern constitutional monarchy. You don't even understand what a "strawman" is.

Seeing you're so free with the word "strawman", its you who keeps bringing up absolute monarchies and the actions of feudal monarchs 1,000 years ago, as if it means something today. The monarchy which I have been referring to in terms of royal assent is a constitutional monarchy. I've also clearly been referring to the Westminster system of government which is what Australia has.

And you know that wasn't the question.
The question was....What can anyone do about it?

“What can anyone do about it?" That's clearly been answered.

I've told you what "anyone can do about it" repeatedly. The authority of a constitutional monarch derives from the people. And the people can remove the monarch, if the monarch is obstructing responsible government. As they did in the French Revolution when the National Legislative Assembly declared France a republic in 1792. In our instance a referendum put to the Australian people to change the Constitution would remove the monarch, if he/she is seen wilfully obstructing responsible government. Do you know what I mean by the term "responsible government"?

Take a look at what happened when Louis XVI's over-use of his power of suspensive veto to obstruct France's revolutionary government in the early 1790s occurred.

That's what we can do about it.

Anything interesting, or just some more tangential nonsense about monarchies absolute or constitutional.

I know it's difficult for you to understand the difference between an absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy. For someone who's so free in accusing others with the word "strawman", you seem to be to be able to present a "strawman" argument very well.

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"

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.

 

[Number37]

First it was barons n churchies...

Once again. The Magna Carta was a royal charter. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) and church rights.

Now it's 10% of the pop...

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.

I wonder if the barons answered to anybody?
I wonder who it was that pushed the barons to push the King?
Do you reckon it could have been some of the peeps?
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?
What about the "rule of law", can you see it 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?


Do you reckon the peeps were singing...

I know I misbehaved
And you made your mistakes
And we both still got room left to grow
And though liberties sometimes hurts
I still put you first
And we'll make this thing work
But I think we should take it slow

We're just ordinary people
We don't know which way to go
'Cause we're ordinary people
Maybe we should take it slow

 

[Roylion]

First it was barons n churchies...

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. The reference to freeman essentially referred to landowners those that held freehold and collectively was less than 10% of the population.

Now it's 10% of the pop...

"Strawman!"

They're not mutually exclusive. Land-owners (barons and landed knights, the church) were less than 10% of the population. In 1214 the Magna Carta was about the lord / vassal relationship between the monarch and the barons/church (i.e landowners). Less than 10% of the population.

I wonder if the barons answered to anybody?

In feudal times, the King. Absolute monarch. However we don’t live in feudal times now and the monarch derives its authority from the people. The French Revolution is a perfect example of how this happened, albeit far more suddenly than England’s gradual evolving from absolutism to constitutional system.

I wonder who it was that pushed the barons to push the King?

In 1214 it wasn't the "people" (if by people you mean the lower classes of feudal England. "The Articles of the Barons" (of which the Magna Carta was the formal document was by a group of powerful barons who could no longer stand King John's failed leadership and despotic rule. It was a little bit like the Assembly of Notables in France (a number of French nobles, including the King's own close relatives) who Simon Schama calls the "first revolutionaries.

Do you reckon some of the peeps might have suggested to the barons that they might shape up or they would be overthrown?

Nope. Not in 1214. Been reading William Stubbs have you?

I wonder if there was ever an occasion in history where the peeps said shape up or we'll ship you out?

Not in 1214.

Do you reckon that the council of 25 barons sounds a lot like a parliament?

It's not a parliament, but it certrainly was the beginnings of a represenative body leading to England's absolute monarchy turning into a consititutional monarchy.

Do you reckon the liberties sound a lot like a Bill of Rights?

it was certainly a charter of baronial and church rights. The Bill of Rights in 1689 was more a bill of individual rights.

Can you see any resemblance to a separation of powers in the Magna Carta?

You mean like a first step on how absolute monarchy evolved into a consitutional monarchy. Yep. And?

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?

Of course they did. Didn't I mention the Westminster system?

An absolute monarchy evolved into a constitutional monarchy. I've been saying that all along. And you accuse others of "strawman" arguments.

So what's your point?

 

[Number37]

So what's your point?

My point is you have no idea what you are talking about.