UK The Queen

[Gethelred]

This thread is actively moderated, let's behave like adults, shall we?

For conversation on an Australian Republic:

Who wants a Republic?

I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[sherb]

There's nothing like a tragedy/significant effect to get the media into overkill mode.

 

[Roylion]

By doing what you keep telling us is the only thing she, or her rep the GG, can do.

The Governor-General was exercising the Queen's reserve powers as the Constitution allowed him to do.


Anne Twomey - Professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney.

[The Palace] "....rightly took the view that Kerr, as a former judge, had a better understanding of the Australian constitution than anyone at Buckingham Palace.

Act on the advice of Cabinet.

In the vast majority of cases...yes. Cabinet had given no advice.

You've repeatedly said that's all she can do, she has no real power...because bla-bla-bla.

The reserve powers are vested in the person of the monarch but are exercised by the governor-General. This is clearly spelt out by the
Australian constitution.

Section 61

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.

When the time came for her rep to act on the advice of Cabinet, he chose to do his own thing.

Kerr sought advice from Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Garfield Barwick and asked for his views of a dismissal of Whitlam.

Barwick furnished Kerr with written advice containing his view that a Governor-General could and should dismiss a Prime Minister who was unable to obtain supply.

That advice included the following text:


"The Constitution of Australia is a federal Constitution which embodies the principle of Ministerial responsibility. The Parliament consists of two Houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, each popularly elected, and each with the same legislative power, with the one exception that the Senate may not originate nor amend a money bill.

"Two relevant Constitutional consequences flow from the structure of the Parliament. First, the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. Secondly, a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. If, being unable to secure supply, he refuses to take either course, Your Excellency has constitutional authority to withdraw his Commission as Prime Minister."

"The duty and responsibility of the Prime Minister to the Crown in each case is the same: if unable to secure supply to the Crown, to resign or to advise on election."

"Accordingly, my opinion is that, if Your Excellency is satisfied in the current situation that the present Government is unable to secure supply, the course upon which Your Excellency has determined is consistent with your constitutional authority and duty."

Kerr had also regularly consulted with High Court judge Sir Anthony Mason from August 1975 to 11 November 1975.

It's almost like the Queen and her rep don't have to always follow the advice they are given by Cabinet.

I've never said they do. They can exercise the reserve powers. That's what the Governor-General is for

Which raises the question, under what other circumstances can the GG act without following the advice of Cabinet?

When the advice of Cabinet violates the Constitution is an example.

Which raises the question, is the GG's power confined to just following advice.

On the evidence, the simple answer is no.

I've never said the GG's power is confined to just following advice

 

[Roylion]

I forgot there was some guy in Australia that apparently descendant of a line that would have had the throne their way if a mistake in past was not made centuries back.
I not know when this doco made but it funny the response by the man himself.

"Is this Australian Man the real King of England?" No he is not.

 

[footyfan1978]

You clown.
So so serious.

 

[footyfan1978]

There's nothing like a tragedy/significant effect to get the media into overkill mode.

View attachment 1507081

It so weird.
Just bury the poor old woman already.

 

[Roylion]

Hate to break it to you mate, but I’ve been scrolling past your Tolstoy-sized contributions on that thread for a long time now.

Whether you do or don't, is immaterial to me.

Among others, you provided a quote from Margaret Thatcher, a politician, on why politicians can’t be trusted.

Yes? And?

Do you even stop to think of the implications of what you’re cut and pasting?

And what would they be?

Anyway, you can quote all you want,

I will.

the fact remains, a big majority of Australians want a republic,

I guess the next referendum will determine that

and it’s hardly unreasonable to assume a lot of them do so because unlike you, they can see the fundamental stupidity of basing a nation’s political structure on thin air.

I've made it quite clear a hereditary, constitutional monarchy does provide a useful function.

If the question we’re examining is what is the optimal political system for Australia, then a hereditary monarchy, where a remote figure radiates power which apparently gains its strength from never being exercised (except when it is, and then it’s done ham-fistedly or dubiously) is not it.

I don't share that opinion.

Have a look at what you’re typing and see if you can grasp how absurd it is.

I don't think it's absurd at all. Apart from the Commonwealth realms, many other countries have hereditary constitutional monarchies. Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Lesotho, Bhutan, Monaco and Tonga. Rwanda, Burundi, Fiji, Benin and Malawi have subnational monarchies.

Then there are the absolute or semi-constitutional monarchies on top of the countries above.

Anyway, it’s like talking to a robot. I’m done here.

OK. Great.

 

[Roylion]

You clown.
So so serious.

The truth is often not funny.

 

[footyfan1978]

The truth is often not funny.

If you not capable of seeing humour in life, I'm sure it is true for you.

 

[Roylion]

If you not capable of seeing humour in life, I'm sure it is true for you.

Oh I'm capable. It wasn't clear that what you posted was meant to be funny. Was I supposed to laugh?

 

[Festerz]

Glorious informed and intelligent article on the need for an Australian head of state from Geoffrey Robinson.

Someone who not only has a strong understanding of history but the intellectual capacity to put that history into the current context - which is actually what matters.

"The monarchy, love it or not, is a relic of aristocratic privilege according to an hereditary principle, which, as Tom Paine once pointed out, “is as ridiculous as the idea of a hereditary mathematician”. It does not comport with our modern ideas or ideals of democracy, equality and human rights."

Australia has no need for a head of state, royal or not

The enthronement of King Charles should make Australia think again about the monarchy and what sort of leadership the nation needs.

www.theage.com.au

 

[footyfan1978]

Oh I'm capable. It wasn't clear that what you posted was meant to be funny. Was I supposed to laugh?

You can do whatever you like. If being so so serious is your want, knock yourself out. I would never impose somebody must laugh if it not in them.

My post was not meant to be anything but sharing an interesting look into "Baldrick's" genealogy research and his interesting take on what he found.

 

[Roylion]

My post was not meant to be anything but sharing an interesting look into "Baldrick's" genealogy research and his interesting take on what he found.

And I made comment on that. It's not true that he is the 'real king of England'.

 

[Number37]

The Governor-General was exercising the Queen's reserve powers as the Constitution allowed him to do.

Why didn't he tell her?

This might explain why...

The Speaker adjourned the House of Representatives at 3:15pm and phoned the Governor-General’s secretary to make an appointment. Sir John Kerr advised the Speaker he was unavailable. The Speaker was told he would have to wait. At 4:25pm, the Speaker arrived as instructed to Government House, only to find that the gates were locked.

As the Speaker waited outside the gates of Government House for over an hour, Sir John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser were firmly ensconced inside, preparing the necessary paperwork to set an election in train and shut down the Parliament. By the time the Speaker was allowed inside Government House at 4:45pm, he was no longer the Speaker of the House. Parliament had been dissolved and the Motion he held in his hand was redundant.

During this critical time period, it is alleged the Governor-General refused to make himself available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with the obvious intention of obstructing the Motion by the House of Representatives. By making himself unavailable, the Governor-General could not entertain the House of Representatives Motion to form or un-form government. To this day, John Menadue, former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet remains livid about the events of that day, clearly still shaken by the ‘immorality’ and ‘deception’ he witnessed.

 

[footyfan1978]

And I made comment on that. It's not true that he is the 'real king of England'.

Clearly he is not the real king of England. Reality went a different way because of the past.
But it very interesting to learn about.
It also funny to see his response to see if history had taken a different path. He basically did not care and flippant about it.
Love that about him.
Was funny what he said about looking for a new governor general at the time.
Looks like something from about 15 years ago. Suspect the old fella has passed on now.

 

[footyfan1978]

View attachment 1507162

Why didn't he tell her?

This might explain why...

The Speaker adjourned the House of Representatives at 3:15pm and phoned the Governor-General’s secretary to make an appointment. Sir John Kerr advised the Speaker he was unavailable. The Speaker was told he would have to wait. At 4:25pm, the Speaker arrived as instructed to Government House, only to find that the gates were locked.

As the Speaker waited outside the gates of Government House for over an hour, Sir John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser were firmly ensconced inside, preparing the necessary paperwork to set an election in train and shut down the Parliament. By the time the Speaker was allowed inside Government House at 4:45pm, he was no longer the Speaker of the House. Parliament had been dissolved and the Motion he held in his hand was redundant.

During this critical time period, it is alleged the Governor-General refused to make himself available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with the obvious intention of obstructing the Motion by the House of Representatives. By making himself unavailable, the Governor-General could not entertain the House of Representatives Motion to form or un-form government. To this day, John Menadue, former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet remains livid about the events of that day, clearly still shaken by the ‘immorality’ and ‘deception’ he witnessed.

To be fair on Kerr. He was probably half drunk so if he fluffed a few things in his role, not a hanging offence.

 

[Number37]

To be fair on Kerr. He was probably half drunk so if he fluffed a few things in his role, not a hanging offence.

I believe the term you are looking for is "conservative mutt".

 

[Roylion]

Clearly he is not the real king of England. Reality went a different way because of the past.

Yep. Henry VII's title to the throne of England was confirmed also by an Act of Parliament on 7th November 1485, which reads.

Recognition of the Title of Henry VII

....it is ordained, established and enacted by authority of this present parliament, that the inheritances of the crowns of the realms of England and of France, ............ rest, remain and abide in the most royal person of our now sovereign lord King Henry the VIIth and in the heirs of his body lawfully coming, perpetually with the grace of God so to endure and in none other."

The late Michael Abney Hastings derived his purported claim from the earlier House of York.

 

[footyfan1978]

I believe the term you are looking for is "conservative mutt".

I was not looking for that... ha ha

 

[Roylion]

View attachment 1507162

Why didn't he tell her?

This might explain why...

The Speaker adjourned the House of Representatives at 3:15pm and phoned the Governor-General’s secretary to make an appointment. Sir John Kerr advised the Speaker he was unavailable. The Speaker was told he would have to wait. At 4:25pm, the Speaker arrived as instructed to Government House, only to find that the gates were locked.

As the Speaker waited outside the gates of Government House for over an hour, Sir John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser were firmly ensconced inside, preparing the necessary paperwork to set an election in train and shut down the Parliament. By the time the Speaker was allowed inside Government House at 4:45pm, he was no longer the Speaker of the House. Parliament had been dissolved and the Motion he held in his hand was redundant.

Whitlam's government had already been dismissed by this time.

 

[tandino]

Just need to have science more forward to re-create a clone of Don Chipp and he can be our keeper as head of state forever more.
Keep the bastards honest.

What we do not want is some *ed up system like the Yanks have.
No president.
Just need a watchdog only.

The only people to blame for the US system are Americans. They, like us, need to take responsibility for the governments they elect.

 

[footyfan1978]

The only people to blame for the US system are Americans. They, like us, need to take responsibility for the governments they elect.

Yes, they are a dumb lot.
So are we for voting to keep a royal family as head of state.
I thought we were smarter than that before the turn of the century.
I was very wrong... ha ha

 

[eddiesmith]

Hate to break it to you mate, but I’ve been scrolling past your Tolstoy-sized contributions on that thread for a long time now.

Among others, you provided a quote from Margaret Thatcher, a politician, on why politicians can’t be trusted.
Do you even stop to think of the implications of what you’re cut and pasting?

Anyway, you can quote all you want, the fact remains, a big majority of Australians want a republic, and it’s hardly unreasonable to assume a lot of them do so because unlike you, they can see the fundamental stupidity of basing a nation’s political structure on thin air.

If the question we’re examining is what is the optimal political system for Australia, then a hereditary monarchy, where a remote figure radiates power which apparently gains its strength from never being exercised (except when it is, and then it’s done ham-fistedly or dubiously) is not it.

Have a look at what you’re typing and see if you can grasp how absurd it is.

Anyway, it’s like talking to a robot. I’m done here.

A big majority of Australians want a republic? Really?

A resounding majority of Australians want to retain the Monarchy rather than become a Republic - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

On the other hand a big majority of Australians did agree with the sacking of the Whitlam Government so maybe it’s time for some people to get over it?

 

[Festerz]

On the other hand a big majority of Australians did agree with the sacking of the Whitlam Government so maybe it’s time for some people to get over it?

Whitlam faced 3 elections in 3 years because of an obstructive opposition playing politics and refusing to accept that their 23 years of rule was over.

And a pompous representative of a foreign land was played like a fool in a political game of brinkmanship that included the deliberate replacement of deceased and democratically elected Senators by people with totally differing political views for political advantage.

But yeah, let's have an election every time the opinion polls turn against the sitting government and see how that works out. Seriously?

And royalists have the gall to say their system brings stability in government.

FFS.

 

[Roylion]

And a pompous representative of a foreign land was played like a fool in a political game of brinkmanship that included the deliberate replacement of deceased and democratically elected Senators by people with totally differing political views for political advantage.

John Kerr was Chief Justice of NSW from 1972 to 1974. Whitlam recommended Kerr as Governor-General to replace Paul Hasluck, because he thought that Kerr would be "politically reliable" as he had been a former member of the Labor Party.

But yeah, let's have an election every time the opinion polls turn against the sitting government and see how that works out. Seriously?

Opinion polls? It was the blocking of supply by the Senate that led to the Dismissal.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

A big majority of Australians want a republic? Really?

A resounding majority of Australians want to retain the Monarchy rather than become a Republic - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

So it's polls at twenty paces? There are plenty of them showing majority support and I'm not interested in dick-measuring.

On the other hand a big majority of Australians did agree with the sacking of the Whitlam Government so maybe it’s time for some people to get over it?

Not sure I'll ever get over a system where the representative of a foreign power can take it upon himself to sack an entire government because, well, you tell me. Why should I? Why are you even remotely OK with that?

And the election result after that shameful episode says nothing about the right or wrong of Kerr's actions.