Society/Culture The house of Windsor

Remove this Banner Ad

Roylion said:
The Queen did not revoke the Governor-General's commission, after parliament has suspended the Governor-General, after he complied with a court decision that Michael Somare was the Prime Minister instead of the parliamentary-elected Peter Neill. As such the crisis was largely averted with parliament removing the "suspension" of the Governor-General who then re-confirmed the original parliamentary election of Prime Minister Neill.
Click to expand...
The Queen is merely a figurehead. I cannot recall where she has directly intervened in any government's internal political decisions, so am not sure what point you are making.
 
Maggie5 said:
The Queen is merely a figurehead. I cannot recall where she has directly intervened in any government's internal political decisions, so am not sure what point you are making.
Click to expand...

Executive power is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. The fact the Queen did not terminate the commission of the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea, made the attempt by the Papuan parliament to suspend the governor-general and replace him with the Speaker of the House, constitutionally illegal. This was eventually recognised by the Papuan government who then "re-instated" him...effectively ending the constitutional crisis when the governor general re-appointed Peter Neill as the Prime Minister.

So while the Queen is derided by some as merely a figurehead, executive power is nonetheless vested in her person, by the very fact she exists as the Head of State. An example of how that executive power might be employed to ensure political stability has already been explained in the case above.
 
Roylion said:
Executive power is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. The fact the Queen did not terminate the commission of the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea, made the attempt by the Papuan parliament to suspend the governor-general and replace him with the Speaker of the House, constitutionally illegal. This was eventually recognised by the Papuan government who then "re-instated" him...effectively ending the constitutional crisis when the governor general re-appointed Peter Neill as the Prime Minister.

So while the Queen is derided by some as merely a figurehead, executive power is nonetheless vested in her person, by the very fact she exists as the Head of State. An example of how that executive power might be employed to ensure political stability has already been explained in the case above.
Click to expand...
I had moved on from PNG and was making an entirely different point yet you seem to keep repeating yourself and not telling me anything that I hadn't read of before.
Has the Queen ever directly intervened in any political decision making without the prior invitation of her representative?
If not then she is merely a figurehead without any real purpose.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It will be instructive to see how this system of government works under a different monarch. The Prince of Wales apparently has form in trying to lobby elected officials over matters of policy.

It is entirely possible that the main contributing factor in the political stability of many of these countries may be the behaviour of Elizabeth Windsor. After all, she has been Queen of Australia for more than half of its existence.
 
The Punter said:
It will be instructive to see how this system of government works under a different monarch. The Prince of Wales apparently has form in trying to lobby elected officials over matters of policy.

It is entirely possible that the main contributing factor in the political stability of many of these countries may be the behaviour of Elizabeth Windsor. After all, she has been Queen of Australia for more than half of its existence.
Click to expand...
I'm a republican through, and through, but very much an admirer of her work.
 
There is surely a question over whether the Commonwealth countries have got "value for money", but she's done the job about as well as one could hope for.

Problem there is the only direction is down. It will be a very interesting time when she leaves this mortal coil.
 
Maggie5 said:
Doesn't really say whether this was on advice of the PM and I think that UK is a bit different from other Commonwealth countries.
Click to expand...

The monarch's personal intervention is rare, but not unknown. In Commonwealth countries its the Governor-Generals that exercise the Queen's powers. And they often ask for advice from the monarch before doing so.

In Australia's case, the Constitution states:

"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."

Therefore most of the powers and functions of the Queen are exercised by the Governor-General, including the reserve powers. The reserve powers are vested in the Queen but exercisable by the Governor-General in her name. For example the Queen did not become involved in the events of 1975 on the basis that the exercising of the Queen's reserve powers is a matter "clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General...... in accordance with the [Australian] Constitution"

Governor-Generals have the right to confer Royal Assent for various pieces of legislation, but can reserve Royal Assent for particular legislation for the Queen personally. For example the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975 (Act No. 33 of 1975) was reserved by the Governor-General for the Queen's personal assent. The Veterans’ Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 did not receive Royal Assent and had to be returned for parliamentary amendment.
 
Roylion said:
The monarch's personal intervention is rare, but not unknown. In Commonwealth countries its the Governor-Generals that exercise the Queen's powers. And they often ask for advice from the monarch before doing so.

In Australia's case, the Constitution states:

"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."

Therefore most of the powers and functions of the Queen are exercised by the Governor-General, including the reserve powers. The reserve powers are vested in the Queen but exercisable by the Governor-General in her name. For example the Queen did not become involved in the events of 1975 on the basis that the exercising of the Queen's reserve powers is a matter "clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General...... in accordance with the [Australian] Constitution"

Governor-Generals have the right to confer Royal Assent for various pieces of legislation, but can reserve Royal Assent for particular legislation for the Queen personally. For example the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975 (Act No. 33 of 1975) was reserved by the Governor-General for the Queen's personal assent. The Veterans’ Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 did not receive Royal Assent and had to be returned for parliamentary amendment.
Click to expand...
I can see that you are a staunch monarchist and have no problem with monarchy and believe it works well for some countries including the UK.
I also agree with Gough, I too respect the Queen but believe that it is no longer relevant to Australia and other Commonwealth countries.
 
Maggie5 said:
I can see that you are a staunch monarchist and have no problem with monarchy and believe it works well for some countries including the UK.
Click to expand...

Well yes.. I am a supporter of the system of constitutional monarchy. I said that at the start. I think I have relatively valid reasons for thinking such. It's far more than just celebrity worship that some try to pass it off as. I take very little notice of the women's magazines gushing over royal births and marriages for example.

And as far as monarchists supposedly being a lover of all things British (or of British descent) that's not correct either. I'm partly of Irish extraction with my forebears on one side mostly being Irish convicts and Irish free-settlers. On the other side I have non-European ancestry.

Some of my ancestors certainly had no love for the British Empire.
 
Last edited:
Roylion said:
Well yes.. I am a supporter of the system of constitutional monarchy. I said that at the start. I think I have relatively valid reasons for thinking such. It's far more than just celebrity worship that some try to pass it off as. I take very little notice of the women's magazines gushing over royal births and marriages for example.

And as far as monarchists supposedly being a lover of all things British (or of British descent) that's not correct either. I'm mostly of Irish extraction with my forebears mostly being Irish convicts and Irish free-settlers. Some of them certainly had no love for the British Empire.
Click to expand...
Not sure where some of the things in your post have come from as I don't think I have mentioned them.
Don't read women's magazines, don't see the Queen as a celebrity, didn't accuse you/monarchists of loving all things British and haven't asked about your background.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Punter said:
The Prince of Wales apparently has form in trying to lobby elected officials over matters of policy.
Click to expand...

No "apparently" about it. Newspapers (think it was The Guardian) last year or the year before, got access to the letters he'd been sending to ministers over the years. There was a s**t ton of them. Cameron Government then passed a law making it illegal to access or publicise letters from the royal family to the government so who knows what the * he'll 'raise concerns' about in the future :rolleyes:

Figurehead my dick.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
I think it's a bit more then that, when i was living in queensland this stupid old bird at work lost her s**t because i didn't know the name of that ******** who got arrested outside the buckingham palace was.

apparently it was abhorred that i didn't know know the names of the queen's children. (legit only thought there was charles)
"how can you not know, OUR queens children" (the emphasis is not added by me BTW)

when i tried to point out the ridiculousness of her stance on the matter by asking her if she knew the children of our prime minister wa, she replied "argh tony abbott's a ******* idiot, i don't give a **** about his children" i then made the worst ever bungle by explaining to her that was my entire point, the look in her eye told me it was time to simply leave the lunchroom before a 55 yr old woman attempted to stab me to death with a plastic spork.

that was the day i realised, the full on royalist don't just support royals and think it's a right old tradition, they worship the campaigners. it's like your opinion on the royals is of vital importance to something they can't quite articulate. last time had the misfortune of overhearing her ranting at 19 year old girl straight out of school for not knowing god save the queen was not only our "true" national anthem but that it was officially titled "god save our gracious queen"

this bitch was ******* mental about the royals. almost makes you wish that bloke who tried to derail the queen's train back in the 70's succeeded.
Click to expand...

there is a place for people like that.........it's called England
 
Bomberboyokay said:
No "apparently" about it. Newspapers (think it was The Guardian) last year or the year before, got access to the letters he'd been sending to ministers over the years. There was a s**t ton of them. Cameron Government then passed a law making it illegal to access or publicise letters from the royal family to the government so who knows what the **** he'll 'raise concerns' about in the future :rolleyes:

Figurehead my dick.
Click to expand...

every individual is allowed to send letters to ministers. He is just like us, so he to should be allowed to.
 
Maggie5 said:
Maybe ask her what she thinks of Charles and his relationship with Saudi Arabia?

I quite like the American system where the President only serves two terms.
Click to expand...

im back in the first state that *, where the biggest issue around the royals, is why they have to * up the roads when they visit.
 
Roylion said:
Well yes.. I am a supporter of the system of constitutional monarchy. I said that at the start. I think I have relatively valid reasons for thinking such. It's far more than just celebrity worship that some try to pass it off as. I take very little notice of the women's magazines gushing over royal births and marriages for example.

And as far as monarchists supposedly being a lover of all things British (or of British descent) that's not correct either. I'm mostly of Irish extraction with my forebears mostly being Irish convicts and Irish free-settlers. Some of them certainly had no love for the British Empire.
Click to expand...
Whilst I do not share the same POV as you do in respect to this issue, I
would love it if people could argue a point as well as you do.
 
Maggie5 said:
The Queen is merely a figurehead. I cannot recall where she has directly intervened in any government's internal political decisions, so am not sure what point you are making.
Click to expand...
comment-gough-whitlam.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
nsw upper house
Replies
0
Views
258
dr strange
D
Aristotle Pickett
USA House begins vote on motion to overthrow Kevin McCarthy
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
E Shed
E Shed
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
901
zeggie
zeggie
darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
570
Rusty Brookes
R
Rotayjay
Society/Culture Working from home vs forced back to the office
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
278
Views
16K
peetoo
peetoo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top