Politics The Republic Debate

[The Speaker]

I think the Kaiser Wilhelm/Daily Telegraph incident says otherwise. While obviously the consequences in the modern era wouldn't be as drastic as that having a King put their foot in their mouth is still something that would be politically damaging.

Not even remotely similar. Wilhelm said that in an interview, Charles said his thing (which wasn't even saying Putin = Hitler) in a private discussion at a Holocaust museum.

For the record I don't think Charles should be skipped, but I do think his outspokenness (relative to the Queen) could result in a blunder that stirs up support for an Australian Republic in the future, whereas William seems less likely to blunder.

Every king will be outspoken relative to the Queen. People will have to get used to the idea that monarchs may actually be willing to speak publically.

For the record pt II, on Monarchy itself, while I have an aversion to the 'Divine Right' concept, recently I have been thinking it is probably preferable to a Presidency. For one it seems to me to be be far more incorruptible, there is no real incentive for the Monarch to engage in partisanship as not doing so is far more advantageous to their position than any bribe could be. The situation in Sri Lanka does not seem possible (at least to the same extent) with our current system.

I think this kind of reasoning is why Australia will not become a republic. Having a president doesn't look as attractive today as it did 20 years ago.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Not even remotely similar. Wilhelm said that in an interview, Charles said his thing (which wasn't even saying Putin = Hitler) in a private discussion at a Holocaust museum.

I interpreted your point as being that in the past the media would not have published salacious material embarrassing to a King in the past, was trying to argue that irreverence for the Monarch and their reputation from the media is not a new thing (iirc Wilhelm was under the impression his remarks would be edited before publication) more than equate the two things, perhaps not the strongest point.

Every king will be outspoken relative to the Queen. People will have to get used to the idea that monarchs may actually be willing to speak publically.

Agree with the first sentence, but disagree that the people have to get used to it. They can decide that they won't, leading to a republic. Nitpicky on my part though and ultimately agree that it isn't likely.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Anyone know the statistics on 'successful' republic establishments in terms of political freedom? Would be interesting reading, off the top my head I can think of a lot more that descended into dictatorship than not (although stories about dictators are more interesting and likely to be remembered).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

There has always been a claim to have been chosen by a divine power. It is the church and crown reinforcing each other's position and influence. The church say the king is chosen by god and that why his family won the battles that put them on the throne, the king keeps the church on side.

That is really basic history there, you shouldn't be surprised.

In my opinion the surprise is that someone, anyone, in this day and age recognises the divine right of royalty to rule. Fair enough someone believes in deities. Fair enough that someone nods to the historical context of intertwining religious belief with all-too-human 'regal' rule. But to believe, honestly believe, that one family is instilled with holy might and power to rule?

It's a joke is what it is.

If Muslims suddenly backed some sheikh or emir as a Caliph ruling by Allah's will alone many would laugh at them, and not nearly all of them Republicans.

 

[Taylor]

In my opinion the surprise is that someone, anyone, in this day and age recognises the divine right of royalty to rule. Fair enough someone believes in deities. Fair enough that someone nods to the historical context of intertwining religious believe with all-too-human 'regal' rule. But to believe, honestly believe, that one family is instilled with holy might and power to rule?

It's a joke is what it is.

If Muslims suddenly backed some sheikh or emir as a Caliph ruling by Allah's will alone many would laugh at them, and not nearly all of them Republicans.

I think it is the tiniest of jumps to believe that a family has been chosen to rule once you're already at the point of thanking god for the sunny days and looking for something to blame when the storm comes.

Especially if you believe god speaks to you in some manner. My mum used to have a friend, she might still - I don't stalk her so I don't keep up with these things - anyway, this friend's mother used to be super selfish but anytime she felt like a day to herself she would decide god told her to take the day for her. She used to hide all manner of anxiety in it as well, or if there was an event like a child's first birthday that she wouldn't be able to drink at - god said no.

There are perfectly good reasons without using the big G ticket.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I think it is the tiniest of jumps to believe that a family has been chosen to rule once you're already at the point of thanking god for the sunny days and looking for something to blame when the storm comes.

Especially if you believe god speaks to you in some manner. My mum used to have a friend, she might still - I don't stalk her so I don't keep up with these things - anyway, this friend's mother used to be super selfish but anytime she felt like a day to herself she would decide god told her to take the day for her. She used to hide all manner of anxiety in it as well, or if there was an event like a child's first birthday that she wouldn't be able to drink at - god said no.

There are perfectly good reasons without using the big G ticket.

I guess belief is a case of 'whatever gets you through the day/night' for a lot of people. And I can't say that's wrong, as it goes. If it doesn't infringe on the happiness of others go for it.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

That gosh darn aren't they just like us PR blitz led by Willnkate and Harrynmeghan (let go of him love, you bagged a Royal, we get it) isn't really working.

Overlooking Charles because he isn't as popular of a celebrity as his mother or his sons is silly. Constitutional monarchs are there as a safety valve. They don't need to be 'inspiring' to do this.

The PR can't work, it's built on an image that'll be long gone by the time it could be useful. Charles, William and George are all old, grey-haired men when they sit on the throne. They struck gold when Elizabeth got in at 25 with the far more kindly media of the 1950s.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

I can't get past the idea of her being the Queen of Australia. I can understand an Empress. But I always though a monarch is tied to just the one state. She can't be the Queen of Oz, and the Queen of Britain. How does that work? Like Scomo being the PM of Australia. And Fiji.

 

[Taylor]

If we invaded Fiji would Fiji cease to exist?

It would just be another domain.

 

[The Speaker]

I can't get past the idea of her being the Queen of Australia. I can understand an Empress. But I always though a monarch is tied to just the one state. She can't be the Queen of Oz, and the Queen of Britain. How does that work? Like Scomo being the PM of Australia. And Fiji.

Emmanuel Macron is the head of state of France and Andorra.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Emmanuel Macron is the head of state of France and Andorra.

Interesting. Australia is a soveriegn state.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Interesting. Australia is a soveriegn state.

So is Andorra, at least according to wikipedia.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

So is Andorra, at least according to wikipedia.

So who does Macron support in a time of conflict between the two? He can't mediate between himself? Say we get caught trading with Iran and Britain obeys America's sanctions. The Queen of Australia will be the Head of Another State declaring economic (at least) war on us.

Worse case scenario: The Queen signs documents declaring war on Australia, We hurriedly send documents over to Buckingham Palace to have the Queen of Australia declare war on the UK

 

[Roylion]

I can't get past the idea of her being the Queen of Australia. I can understand an Empress. But I always though a monarch is tied to just the one state.

Why not? It's quite common in history. A few examples which is by no means exhaustive.

Brazil and Portugal (1815-1822)
Denmark and England (1013-1042)
England and France (1422-1453)
England and Scotland (1603–1707)
England and the Dutch Republic (1689–1702)
Norway and Sweden (1814-1905)

 

[M Malice]

Royalty in this day and age is the quintessential anachronism. I have no doubt one day it will go the way of the dinosaur. How we still have blood line rule is beyond me.

Probably not in my lifetime though, too many people still read tripe magazines and watch sycophantic royal arse licking morning TV shows, the royal family is nothing more than fodder and distraction for the masses, I put them in the Kardashian mould.

 

[Tandy]

Hope it happens in my lifetime.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Michael D Higgins sworn in today/yesterday for his second term as Ireland's ninth president.

Royalty in this day and age is the quintessential anachronism. I have no doubt one day it will go the way of the dinosaur. How we still have blood line rule is beyond me.

Probably not in my lifetime though, too many people still read tripe magazines and watch sycophantic royal arse licking morning TV shows, the royal family is nothing more than fodder and distraction for the masses, I put them in the Kardashian mould.

Bill Shorten is giving us a plebiscite so sycophant royal supporters will have to put that in their pipes and smoke it.