Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[The Punter]

I think we're having a pretty robust conversation about what kind of country we want to be right here.

 

[burge13]

If we could put our collective good together for a few weeks the whole population could legitimately do great things

The first thing I'd do, get Dwayne Russell out AFL commentary. Whos with me

 

[Father Jack]

I think we're having a pretty robust conversation about what kind of country we want to be right here.

Imagine how much more robust the conversation would be if the question of who was going to be the next Head of State was actually a real question

 

[barreness]

Because of parliament.

Parliament decided the form of government. England was a republic between 1649 and 1660. The monarchy was restored in 1660 when Parliament invited King Charles II to take the throne. The elected Convention Parliament proclaimed that Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the death of Charles I in January 1649.

Parliament also decided who was to be the monarch by determining the law of succession and the conditions a prospective monarch must meet to be the monarch.

Parliament also decides the role and powers of the monarch.

I'm not going to go toe to toe with you on British monarchy history. Yes I'm sure parliament has invited, set laws for them etc etc

But what's the justification for that particular family line? King Charles just got a bump up to the head of the church of England, separate from the pope and all that jazz. Divine right of kings is the legitimatising force behind the monarchy even if there's a few laws around it these days, it's the vibe

The doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings' is not the basis for a modern constitutional monarchy and hasn't been since 1689.

sorry couldn't resist, farcical aquatic ceremonies

 

[JoondalupJ]

Divine right of kings? The justification of the monarchy

Nothing to do with the divine right of Kings. Its about a protective system of politics that allows one individual a single power in case your government starts looking very bad. ALP looking so off target these days, and supporting some pretty bad people.

Now the Prime Minister has made a massive political appointment, with this new governor general, the point is, she may be honest and decent , but, and a big BUT too, she is left wing to the point that every one knows it. Its out there. She is supposed to be totally apolitical no lean any which way.

Now some of you will say well all PM's put in GG's that are sort of in line with the government of the time, true, but this woman is "a king wokeriser"!

Who says Australia Day, is Invasion day.

Well what ever, if it was invasion day, for most it turned out ok.

If no invasion? Or Colonisation had have happened I wonder what the place would be like now, in its prehistoric state?

And I don't believe in the comments from certain outlandish Aboriginal activists that tell us it was
all peace and tranquility , no wars no fighting , no child abuse , and our governor general is a Voice activist too.

So the Voice that separated people for months on end and got badly beaten, PM's fault, she supported what I regard as a race dividing ideal.

This is the new UNBIASED GG???? HAHAHAHAHA.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Imagine how much more robust the conversation would be if the question of who was going to be the next Head of State was actually a real question

It was. Republic is not needed its just another way to make something to argue about. We are being sucked into the useless disagreements in politics and ideals, when we were fine up until this latest disaster for Australia became the PM.

Can't see it?? Haven't looked too hard.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

When do we get to vote - the queen is dead, won't be long before Wills takes over from Charles and so on. Doesn't look like it will ever happen now. And that's a bloody shame.

 

[barreness]

Nothing to do with the divine right of Kings. Its about a protective system of politics that allows one individual a single power in case your government starts looking very bad. ALP looking so off target these days, and supporting some pretty bad people.

Pretty woke modern take

Now the Prime Minister has made a massive political appointment, with this new governor general, the point is, she may be honest and decent , but, and a big BUT too, she is left wing to the point that every one knows it. Its out there. She is supposed to be totally apolitical no lean any which way.

She's a capitalist, board member of a bunch of highly profitable enterprises

Now some of you will say well all PM's put in GG's that are sort of in line with the government of the time, true, but this woman is "a king wokeriser"!

If you take a look at the King's views on climate, environmental protection, woman rights etc she's actually very close to him

Who says Australia Day, is Invasion day.

Well what ever, if it was invasion day, for most it turned out ok.

If no invasion? Or Colonisation had have happened I wonder what the place would be like now, in its prehistoric state?

And I don't believe in the comments from certain outlandish Aboriginal activists that tell us it was
all peace and tranquility , no wars no fighting , no child abuse , and our governor general is a Voice activist too.

So the Voice that separated people for months on end and got badly beaten, PM's fault, she supported what I regard as a race dividing ideal.

This is the new UNBIASED GG???? HAHAHAHAHA.

Climate change isn't left wing, it's recorded data and is causing destruction as we speak. Not genociding indigenous people isn't left wing, nor is woman's equality. These are bland centrist positions, it is the status quo

Read her wiki, nothing controversial in the slightest, which is why she was picked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mostyn

 

[Father Jack]

Nothing to do with the divine right of Kings. Its about a protective system of politics that allows one individual a single power in case your government starts looking very bad. ALP looking so off target these days, and supporting some pretty bad people.

Now the Prime Minister has made a massive political appointment, with this new governor general, the point is, she may be honest and decent , but, and a big BUT too, she is left wing to the point that every one knows it. Its out there. She is supposed to be totally apolitical no lean any which way.

Now some of you will say well all PM's put in GG's that are sort of in line with the government of the time, true, but this woman is "a king wokeriser"!

Who says Australia Day, is Invasion day.

Well what ever, if it was invasion day, for most it turned out ok.

If no invasion? Or Colonisation had have happened I wonder what the place would be like now, in its prehistoric state?

And I don't believe in the comments from certain outlandish Aboriginal activists that tell us it was
all peace and tranquility , no wars no fighting , no child abuse , and our governor general is a Voice activist too.

So the Voice that separated people for months on end and got badly beaten, PM's fault, she supported what I regard as a race dividing ideal.

This is the new UNBIASED GG???? HAHAHAHAHA.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, you've still got the King of England there to smack her down if she gets out of hand.

 

[Blue1980]

Sorry what?! You're advocating change for change sake. If you desperately want something to change and you need people to vote for it, of course it matters LOL. Utter lunacy

Not much discussion. I just pop in to see if there's anything more meaningful developed for the ones that want change. Still nothing, unsurprisingly

head of state lol.

Well if it changes it shouldn’t bother you either

 

[Blue1980]

I think of all the things to change which would/could/should push us towards the country we want to be, that would change very little, if anything. There's bigger and better things to focus on that would actually affect people. I really don't think I'm in the minority in not giving a single iota of care to who the HOS is. If I had to guess, over half wouldn't know what it is. Mystifying to me people do actually care but at least you gave a reason even if I disagree with it's importance.

If it went to a mandatory vote this weekend, it would have no chance. Well over half the population would just be annoyed at having to vote than the result. I doubt this could ever be sold as important to the majority when CPI, rents, bills etc are rising...

It’s not a one or the other thing, we can do this plus other things, one can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Engimal v3]

I hope you can get some sleep tonight, the stress of the head of state being from overseas appears to be weighing on you greatly

Imagine if they were born here though. We'd be living with hoverboards and time machines. Oh how things would be great if the HOS changed

I don't understand this kind of hyperbole. When even the British are discussing the King's relevance in a modern United Kingdom, it's not unreasonable that a foreign country on the other side of the world discuss whether he should be their head of state - especially as our demographics have shifted from being British to multicultural.

 

[Roylion]

But what's the justification for that particular family line?

Conquest. The laws of inheritance regarding property.

Before the reformation in the 1500s only the pope could be considered God’s lieutenant on Earth. After the Reformation, monarchs (depending on their particular faith) were subject to increased opposition from Catholic, Calvinist/Presbyterian, and Puritan churches, all of which challenged royal primacy in religious matters by claiming supreme authority in those matters. As well as this there was the competing claim to supreme authority in state matters by popular representative institutions.

Hence the doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings was invoked and promoted.

Whatever the case, the invoking of God as a basis of royal and political legitimacy is a thing of the past and hasn't been invoked in the case of the British monarchy since 1689.

Remember the Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God. In other words it was a doctrine that defended monarchical absolutism by claiming that monarchs were answerable to God alone. It existed to condemn disobedience, or more particularly, rebellion by various individuals, and various institutions as mentioned above.

Britain and Australia are constitutional monarchies and the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings' is completely irrelevant.

King Charles just got a bump up to the head of the church of England, separate from the pope and all that jazz.

That was Henry VIII who formed his own Church in a dispute over religious authority in England with the Pope who had refused him his desire for a divorce.

Divine right of kings is the legitimatising force behind the monarchy even if there's a few laws around it these days, it's the vibe

No, it's not.

 

[barreness]

Conquest. The laws of inheritance regarding property.

More so what is the justification to their subjects, not legality stuff, just why is this bloke king

Before the reformation in the 1500s only the pope could be considered God’s lieutenant on Earth. After the Reformation, monarchs (depending on their particular faith) were subject to increased opposition from Catholic, Calvinist/Presbyterian, and Puritan churches, all of which challenged royal primacy in religious matters by claiming supreme authority in those matters. As well as this there was the competing claim to supreme authority in state matters by popular representative institutions.

Hence the doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings was invoked and promoted.

Whatever the case, the invoking of God as a basis of royal and political legitimacy is a thing of the past and hasn't been invoked in the case of the British monarchy since 1689.

Remember the Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God. In other words it was a doctrine that defended monarchical absolutism by claiming that monarchs were answerable to God alone. It existed to condemn disobedience, or more particularly, rebellion by various individuals, and various institutions as mentioned above.

Britain and Australia are constitutional monarchies and the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings' is completely irrelevant.



That was Henry VIII who formed his own Church in a dispute over religious authority in England with the Pope who had refused him his desire for a divorce.

No, it's not.

It's the same monarchy yeh?

 

[peetoo]

Nothing to do with the divine right of Kings. Its about a protective system of politics that allows one individual a single power in case your government starts looking very bad. ALP looking so off target these days, and supporting some pretty bad people.

Now the Prime Minister has made a massive political appointment, with this new governor general, the point is, she may be honest and decent , but, and a big BUT too, she is left wing to the point that every one knows it. Its out there. She is supposed to be totally apolitical no lean any which way.

Now some of you will say well all PM's put in GG's that are sort of in line with the government of the time, true, but this woman is "a king wokeriser"!

Who says Australia Day, is Invasion day.

Well what ever, if it was invasion day, for most it turned out ok.

If no invasion? Or Colonisation had have happened I wonder what the place would be like now, in its prehistoric state?

And I don't believe in the comments from certain outlandish Aboriginal activists that tell us it was
all peace and tranquility , no wars no fighting , no child abuse , and our governor general is a Voice activist too.

So the Voice that separated people for months on end and got badly beaten, PM's fault, she supported what I regard as a race dividing ideal.

This is the new UNBIASED GG???? HAHAHAHAHA.

Have you read some of king charles’ past views? He and she can have their own public views but still carry out constitutional duties

 

[Roylion]

More so what is the justification to their subjects, not legality stuff, just why is this bloke king

By conquest

Henry VII, the first of the Tudors who displaced the Yorkist Plantagenets declared himself King of England by right of conquest on August 21st 1485.

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

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."

It's the same monarchy yeh?

Well yes, but the way various individuals have become the monarch has differed.

 

[peetoo]

Just to lighten it up a bit. The ‘right to roam’

The Fight for the Right to Trespass

A group of English activists want to legally enshrine the “right to roam” — and spread the idea that nature is a common good.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Nothing to do with the divine right of Kings. Its about a protective system of politics that allows one individual a single power in case your government starts looking very bad. ALP looking so off target these days, and supporting some pretty bad people.

Now the Prime Minister has made a massive political appointment, with this new governor general, the point is, she may be honest and decent , but, and a big BUT too, she is left wing to the point that every one knows it. Its out there. She is supposed to be totally apolitical no lean any which way.

Now some of you will say well all PM's put in GG's that are sort of in line with the government of the time, true, but this woman is "a king wokeriser"!

Who says Australia Day, is Invasion day.

Well what ever, if it was invasion day, for most it turned out ok.

If no invasion? Or Colonisation had have happened I wonder what the place would be like now, in its prehistoric state?

And I don't believe in the comments from certain outlandish Aboriginal activists that tell us it was
all peace and tranquility , no wars no fighting , no child abuse , and our governor general is a Voice activist too.

So the Voice that separated people for months on end and got badly beaten, PM's fault, she supported what I regard as a race dividing ideal.

This is the new UNBIASED GG???? HAHAHAHAHA.

Did you kick up this much fuss when Hurley was appointed by Morrison?

 

[The Punter]

Imagine how much more robust the conversation would be if the question of who was going to be the next Head of State was actually a real question

I think it would be of a similar robustness, involving mostly the same people.

 

[burge13]

It’s not a one or the other thing, we can do this plus other things, one can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sure but there are literally 1000's of things more important than this so I'd prefer our government concentrate on any of those firsts and foremost. This matters less than just about anything politically, I struggle to put this above anything off the top of my head tbh.

 

[burge13]

Well if it changes it shouldn’t bother you either

It shouldn't bother anyone ffs, that's my point. Why do you care? How will your life change for the better or how is it worse now? Any examples?

Then factor in the cost that this would bring. Is it really worth it? The government would somehow manage to waste billions on this if it got up. Why should we endure that cost. Focus on more important issues is all I'm saying.

 

[peetoo]

It shouldn't bother anyone ffs, that's my point. Why do you care? How will your life change for the better or how is it worse now? Any examples?

Then factor in the cost that this would bring. Is it really worth it? The government would somehow manage to waste billions on this if it got up. Why should we endure that cost. Focus on more important issues is all I'm saying.

Cost could be covered if each states GG was also abolished. NT seems to manage without

 

[Cap]

Sure but there are literally 1000's of things more important than this so I'd prefer our government concentrate on any of those firsts and foremost. This matters less than just about anything politically, I struggle to put this above anything off the top of my head tbh.

you are still here, not being interested.

 

[Cap]

Sure.

 

[Gethelred]

If we could put our collective good together for a few weeks the whole population could legitimately do great things

The first thing I'd do, get Dwayne Russell out AFL commentary. Whos with me

burge13 for GG!