Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Number37]

I've told you what responsible government is with the definition from a constitutional law expert.

Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as witholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government. The people have the ultimate say. A referendum can remove the monarchy fkr example and as I have said the monarch would have no choice but to give the royal assent to do so, if the decision by the people was made in accordance with the Constitution..

It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising the reserve powers and will therefore act mostly by convention. Refusing royal assent has only happened in Australian history because of drafting mistakes and hasn't happened in Britain since 1708.

Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College in London suggested in his paper "Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives" 2004 that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. The Royal Assent cannot act as a veto power.

The current system has a number of checks and balances.

You left out the most important bit of responsible govt.
The responsible part comes from the ability of the people to elect members of parliament.
The responsible part is responsibility to the people.

Which has nothing to do with the monarch.
The people cannot force the monarch to do anything.
That's why we ended up with the Magna Carta.
I've already explained this to you.
The King said, he can do whatever the F he wants, because it is the divine right of a King to do as he wants.
The people said to the King, yeah sure you can have your divine right of a King, but we want something a little more concrete that entrenches some of our rights. Enter the Magna Carta.

What that should tell you, is that the people didn't have any power over the King, other than to threaten to chop his head off, and the King recognised that he would get his head chopped off, so he gave the peeps some of the things they wanted.
The King still to this day has their divine right. If they so choose, they could unwind the entire Constitution and nobody could do anything about it...except chop their head off and install a King that wouldn't be such a douche bag.

There is no power, in any Constitution, that would allow the govt or people, to overrule the King.

The only thing that a govt could do is sack the GG.
But the GG has the power to sack the govt.
Before the govt could get through the process to sack a GG, the GG would sack the govt.


In 1975 the GG (Kerr) locked the gates and turned off the lights so that the Whitlam govt couldn't present him with legislation.

 

[Roylion]

1/
The fact still remains, it has never been tested in real life.

Never been tested in 'real life'? What does this mean?

2/
There is no constitutional power to force the monarch to assent to laws.

I've explained royal assent you. Consititutional lawyers both in Australia and Britain are saying that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. Royal veto effectively does not exist.

The only way for a govt to challenge a monarch if they chose to not assent to a law would be via a constitutional provision.

The monarch is duty bound to assent to a law passed by both houses of parliament and on the advice of their ministers. That is responsible government.

That is because ALL the power of a govt comes from the constitution.

As does the power of the monarch. There is no "divine right of kings". The monarch does not derive their power from god.

Any power that a govt tries to use that isn't in the constitution is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

3/
Conventions don't mean shit and have no force of law.

But law can be ignored as well.

For example in New Guinea, the Parliament of New Guinea effectively expressed a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Michael Somare and elected Peter O’Neill to lead in his stead. This wasn't done in accordance with the Papua New Guinea Constitution. When the Supreme Court declared the dismissal and appointment invalid, Parliament simply removed the Court. The new Deputy Prime Minister led police and troops into the Courthouse and arrested the Chief Justice on charges of sedition, despite the Court twice holding the current regime to be illegal. Separation of powers is an express feature of the Papua New Guinea Constitution, and yet it did not (and could not) stop the arrests of members of the Supreme Court by the 'illegal' regime.

Governments could advise royal assent not be granted if bills are passed against their wishes, say in the case of a minority government, but that is very unlikely to happen.

It is an established constitutional convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Conventions are rules of good political behaviour. To count as a convention, they must be generally accepted to be binding. They operate to reduce the broad and potentially dictatorial powers of the head of state and other governmental figures and bodies, are considered essential to this end, and have been argued by a number of scholars, such as Dr. Léonid Sirot, Associate Professor at the Reading Law School, to be part of constitutional law, particularly in a country with an unwritten constitution such as the UK. Conventions are themselves the product of law. And if a convention is not legally binding, who enforces it or why is it obeyed?

For example one well-known convention is in the UK that the prime minister is expected to resign where it is clear that he or she does not command the confidence of the House of Commons and an alternative government does. If this was not carried out there would not be legal sanctions but there woud certainly be political ones.

In Australia the Constitution grants nearly unfettered power to the Governor-General, but convention takes away all save a set of 'reserve powers'. The sole purpose of those powers is to resolve constitutional crises, and their exercise is itself subject to convention designed to prevent abuse.

4/
What a load of complete trollop.
They still send a copy of proposed legislation to the GG for royal assent.
It is not a 'fiction of the past'.
It still f'ing happens.

Read what I said carefully...

"A discretionary power of royal veto was described by Walter Bagehot in 1867 as "a fiction of the past" and by the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1910 as "literally as dead as Queen Anne".

Yes. Proposed legislation is sent to the Governor-General for royal assent. As I said earlier, constitutional experts suggest the monarch's / governor-general's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I've answered this already. See my previous comments and the argument for the hereditary principle.

Not really. you've quoted copius amounts of constitutional monarchy word salad. Id like you tell us how you. yourself feels about having our head of state chosen by accident of birth. While thinking of your answer, remember, if Charlie had croaked before he had kids, Andrew would now be King. the pedo king

 

[Roylion]

Which has nothing to do with the monarch.
The people cannot force the monarch to do anything.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The people can remove the monarch. Parliament, the representatives of the people, decides on the monarch, through the laws of succession which are Acts of Parliament and their powers and rights through other laws and statutes such as the Declaration of Rights (1689).

That's why we ended up with the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was a reaction by the aristocracy and Church prelates against the absolutism and despotism of the monarch.

Don't confuse an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy. They are different things.

The King said, he can do whatever the F he wants, because it is the divine right of a King to do as he wants.

That is complete garbage. You don't know what you are talking about. There is no such thing as the 'divine right of kings'. It hasn't been a thing since 1689. I've outlined this already by mentioning the various clauses of the 1689 Declaration of Rights, which of course you've completely ignored.

The people said to the King, yeah sure you can have your divine right of a King, but we want something a little more concrete that entrenches some of our rights. Enter the Magna Carta.

The "people" said no such thing.

What that should tell you, is that the people didn't have any power over the King, other than to threaten to chop his head off, and the King recognised that he would get his head chopped off, so he gave the peeps some of the things they wanted.

What absolute garbage. Do some reading on the Magna Carta. Actually learn some history instead of making it up.

The King still to this day has their divine right. If they so choose, they could unwind the entire Constitution and nobody could do anything about it...except chop their head off and install a King that wouldn't be such a douche bag.

Absolute rubbish. There is absolutely no 'divine right'. That you even suggest so, just shows your complete lack of understanding of history and constitutional law.

There is no power, in any Constitution, that would allow the govt or people, to overrule the King.

The monarchy could be removed by the people if they had the desire to do so. This would be done by changing the Constitution which the monarch is subject to.

The only thing that a govt could do is sack the GG.

The Governor-General is not the head of state. The Governor-General exercises the monarch's reserve powers. The monarchy can be removed in Australia by a successful referendum which would replace the current model of constitutional monarchy with a particular model of a republic.

In 1975 the GG (Kerr) locked the gates and turned off the lights so that the Whitlam govt couldn't present him with legislation.

Yeah sure.

 

[Roylion]

Not really. you've quoted copius amounts of constitutional monarchy word salad.

Surely what I've said is not too difficult for you to understand. Why don't you address some of those comments specifically.

yourself feels about having our head of state chosen by accident of birth.

I've made my position perfectly clear.

While thinking of your answer, remember, if Charlie had croaked before he had kids, Andrew would now be King. the pedo king

Like monarchs before him, unsuitable candidates, for whatever reason would be asked to abdicate. Edward VIII in 1936 is a good example. A royal abdication can be effected only by an Act of Parliament.

 

[barreness]

The idea that a monarchy isn't political(or less so than a regular punter) is laughable. The status quo is the basis for their lives and position, to think that they'd allow something(when they could stop it) that threatened them is magic pixie dust

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Surely what I've said is not too difficult for you to understand. Why don't you address some of those comments specifically.


I've made my position perfectly clear.



Like monarchs before him, unsuitable candidates, for whatever reason would be asked to abdicate. Edward VIII in 1936 is a good example. A royal abdication can be effected only by an Act of Parliament.

OK - so you prefer not to say that you love the whole theatre of monarchy and would happily pledge allegiance to another country's KIng. thats more what I hade in mind rather than all that uppitty waffle.

As to your last point - surely to hell we need a system which prevents unsuitable people getting into the position before we have to blast them out. Maybe try looking at what you are saying from the point of view of someone who thinks we've outgrown kings and queens and princesses.

 

[Roylion]

OK - so you prefer not to say that you love the whole theatre of monarchy and would happily pledge allegiance to another country's KIng. thats more what I hade in mind rather than all that uppitty waffle.

I've made it VERY clear that I support the system of constitutional monarchy. Surely that has been obvious to you from the start.

I've also tried to explain why. You dismiss it as so called "uppity waffle."

As to your last point - surely to hell we need a system which prevents unsuitable people getting into the position before we have to blast them out.

I've given you the reasons why many support a hereditary constitutional monarchy. Go back and read it again, if you're still unsure as to why.

Maybe try looking at what you are saying from the point of view of someone who thinks we've outgrown kings and queens and princesses.

Maybe trying looking at what you are saying from the point of someone who thinks a constitutional monarchial system is to be preferred.

 

[Number37]

That is complete and utter rubbish. The people can remove the monarch. Parliament, the representatives of the people, decides on the monarch

I remember that time the people voted on who would replace Lizzy as Queen.

That is complete garbage. You don;t know what you are talking about. There is no such thing as the 'divine right of kings'. It hasn't been a thing since 1689. Ive outlined this alreadty in thr Declaration of Rights, which of course you've completely ignored.

No such thing as the 'divine right of Kings'.

The monarchy could be removed by the people if they had the desire to do so. This would be done by changing the Constitution which the monarch is subject to.

Ummm maybe you don't understand what 'royal assent' means.
To abolish the monarchy, the monarch would have to consent.
What happens if the monarch says, yeah nah, to legislation that attempts to abolish the monarchy?

How can the monarch be forced to assent?
They can't, other than by chopping off their bloody head and installing a monarch that would agree to abolish the monarchy.

It's not rocket science.

Yeah sure.

Positive.
The govt took a Bill to the GG's residence and weren't allowed in.

 

[Number37]

Never been tested in 'real life'? What does this mean?

It means that your theory is bullshit.
There is nothing stopping the GG or monarch from not giving royal assent.
If there is, point us to the Constitutional provision which says the monarch must grant royal assent always and forever without question because reasons.

 

[Number37]

I've explained royal assent you. Consititutional lawyers both in Australia and Britain are saying that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. Royal veto effectively does not exist.

They say a lot of things Constitutional lawyers.
If you pay attention to what they actually say, they have NEVER EVER said, it is so because they have to.

It has never been tested....if a monarch declines to give royal assent...
There is no provision in the Constitution for the govt (or anyone else) to force the monarch to do anything.
The govt can only act using powers given to it under the Constitution.
There is no power in the Constitution to force the monarch to do anything.
Any attempt by the govt to force the monarch to do anything would therefore be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That is just basic legal reasoning and basic logic.

One minute you say the Constitution bla-bla-bla nek minnit you claim the govt can just ignore the Constitution and act completely outside the powers the Constitution grants it.

 

[Roylion]

I remember that time the people voted on who would replace Lizzy as Queen.

Really? Is that the best you can come up with? Parliament can alter the law of succession via an Act of Parliament and last did so in 2015.

No such thing as the 'divine right of Kings'.

There is no such thing in terms of the modern constitutional monarchy. I don't even know why you are arguing in favour of such a concept. As a doctrine to support the monarchy it hasn't been a thing since 1689.

Ummm maybe you don't understand what 'royal assent' means.
To abolish the monarchy, the monarch would have to consent.

Even if they didnt want to abolish their own own position, they would have to do so.

What happens if the monarch says, yeah nah, to legislation that attempts to abolish the monarchy?

Then they would be removed by other means. England was a republic between 1649 and 1660. On 7 February 1649, Parliament passed the act to abolish the office of King. Two days later an act abolishing the House of Lords was passed. Then on 19th May 1649. Emgland was declared a Commonwealth.

"And shall from henceforth be Governed as a Commonwealth and Free-State, by the Supreme Authority of this Nation, The Representatives of the People in Parliament, and by such as they shall appoint and constitute as Officers and Ministers under them for the good of the People, and that without any King or House of Lords."

Read some history.

How can the monarch be forced to assent?

I've explained convention. Had Australia voted in the affirmative in 1999 that a republic of Australia would be installed, the Governor-General (as the monarch's representative) would have given royal assent effectively abolishing his own office. Had he reserved the Bill for the Queen's pleasure, then the Queen would have given it. The Palace in 1999 made that quite clear.

They can't, other than by chopping off their bloody head and installing a monarch that would agree to abolish the monarchy.

I very much doubt that the UK would "chop off" the monarch's head. That statement is juvenile.

Positive.
The govt took a Bill to the GG's residence and weren't allowed in.

It's more involved than that.

 

[Number37]

Read what I said carefully...

"A discretionary power of royal veto was described by Walter Bagehot in 1867 as "a fiction of the past" and by the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1910 as "literally as dead as Queen Anne".

Yes. Proposed legislation is sent to the Governor-General for royal assent. As I said earlier, constitutional experts suggest the monarch's / governor-general's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

You have NFI what you are talking about.

Ever heard of the Whitehall Papers??

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/QC_PC_pamphlet_191212.pdf



The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.



Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

 

[Roylion]

It means that your theory is bullshit.
There is nothing stopping the GG or monarch from not giving royal assent.

As I said many constitutional lawyers - experts in their field - suggest that the ability of the monarch to impose a royal veto on a law passed by both Houses of Parliament and endorsed by the advice of the monarch's ministers, does not exist.

 

[Number37]

As I said many constitutional lawyers - experts in their field - suggest that the ability of the monarch to impose a royal veto on a law passed by both Houses of Parliament and endorsed by the advice of the monarch's ministers, does not exist.

Yeah.
Nah.

2013 is a long time after 1909.

 

[Roylion]

You have NFI what you are talking about.

Ever heard of the Whitehall Papers??

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/QC_PC_pamphlet_191212.pdf

Yeah I have. These refer to the King's or Prince's Consent that is obtained early in the legislative process, before parliament debates or votes on a bill. It involves prior communication between Parliament and the Crown on bills Bills that affect the royal prerogative, the personal property and "personal interests" of the monarch before a bill is debated in parliament

So this is before both houses of parliament have debated and passed the Bill. I'm talking about royal assent after both houses of parliament have passed a bill, which will be given.

If King's / Queen's Consent is withheld, it is done on the advice of Government. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by the sitting government (as opposed to Parliament as whole). The monarch has not used any veto to block legislation.

Similarly, the Prince of Wales grants and withholds the Prince's Consent on the advice of the monarch's ministers.

In any case all of this is separate to Royal Assent, where the monarch formally approves to a bill after it is passed by Parliament for it to become law.

 

[Number37]

Yeah I have. These refer to the King's or Prince's Consent that is obtained early in the legislative process, before parliament debates or votes on a bill. It involves prior communication between Parliament and the Crown on bills Bills that affect the royal prerogative, the personal property and "personal interests" of the monarch before a bill is debated in parliament

So this is before both houses of parliament have debated and passed the Bill. I'm talking about royal assent after both houses of parliament have passed a bill, which will be given.

If King's / Queen's Consent is withheld, it is done on the advice of Government. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by the sitting government (as opposed to Parliament as whole). The monarch has not used any veto to block legislation.

Similarly, the Prince of Wales grants and withholds the Prince's Consent on the advice of the monarch's ministers.

In any case all of this is separate to Royal Assent, where the monarch formally approves to a bill after it is passed by Parliament for it to become law.

But but but there's no veto.
Didn't the article say there is a veto?
Wasn't the article all about the veto & the input of royals in the legislative process?

You told us that there was no such thing!
The monarch is just there. The monarch can't do nuffin. You said.
You said it was a fiction.
You said Bilbo Baggins said it was a fiction.
Roylion or Roylyin?

 

[peetoo]

Boris ignored a few ‘conventions’

 

[Roylion]

But but but there's no veto.

There's no veto on royal assent which I've said.

Consent is a process entirely distinct from Royal Assent.

The granting of King’s or Prince’s consent for a bill is merely a consent for Parliament to debate the bill and only if the Bill affects the Crown. In the Prince of Wales' case only if the Bill affects the Crown's hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is granted or withheld as advised by government, for example for a private member's bill. The Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice. This of course means the sitting Government could use the process of Consent to prevent the progress of Private Members’ Bills which it opposes. There are least five specific examples of this in 1868, 1964, 1969, 1995 and 1999.

So it is the constitutional duty of the monarch and the Prince of Wales to act on the advice of the Government in regard to consent. For example, in 1970 the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, gave his consent to the Plymouth and South West Devon Water Bill, despite being personally against it and petitioning against it.

If Consent is sometimes characterised as a veto, in reality, it is a veto that would be operated by the Government, rather than by the monarchy, as the monarch and the Prince of Wales act on the government's advice. The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14 found that there was "no evidence to suggest that legislation is ever altered as part of the Consent process."

The monarch has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn.

The Royal Assent is never refused for a bill that has successfully made its way through Parliament.

In addition the abolition of consent would be a matter for Parliament to decide and not the monarch. In 2013 Lord Berkeley presented a Private Member’s Bill, the Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill, that, among other things, would abolish Consent. It had its Second Reading on 8 November 2013. Lord Berkeley’s Bill to abolish Consent itself required Consent from the Queen and Prince of Wales, which was duly granted on the advice of the government.

Didn't the article say there is a veto?

See above.

Wasn't the article all about the veto & the input of royals in the legislative process?

See above.

You told us that there was no such thing!

See above,

The monarch is just there. The monarch can't do nuffin. You said.

You said it was a fiction.

See above.

Roylion or Roylyin?

Says the poster that continually skews and warps history to suit his own agenda.

Tell me all about the Divine Right of Kings and the Magna Carta again. You've posted absolute garbage about them both, which merely shows your complete ignorance of what they actually were. To suggest that Divine Right of Kings operates as a doctrine for the modern constitutional monarchy is laughable. Your claim that the Magna Carta came from the demands of the "people" is also ridiculous.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

There's no veto on royal assent which I've said.

Consent is a process entirely distinct from Royal Assent.

The granting of King’s or Prince’s consent for a bill is merely a consent for Parliament to debate the bill and only if the Bill affects the Crown. In the Prince of Wales' case only if the Bill affects the Crown's hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is granted or withheld as advised by government, for example for a private member's bill. The Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice. This of course means the sitting Government could use the process of Consent to prevent the progress of Private Members’ Bills which it opposes. There are least five specific examples of this in 1868, 1964, 1969, 1995 and 1999.

So it is the constitutional duty of the monarch and the Prince of Wales to act on the advice of the Government in regard to consent. For example, in 1970 the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, gave his consent to the Plymouth and South West Devon Water Bill, despite being personally against it and petitioning against it.

If Consent is sometimes characterised as a veto, in reality, it is a veto that would be operated by the Government, rather than by the monarchy, as the monarch and the Prince of Wales act on the government's advice. The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14 found that there was "no evidence to suggest that legislation is ever altered as part of the Consent process."

The monarch has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn.

The Royal Assent is never refused for a bill that has successfully made its way through Parliament.

In addition the abolition of consent would be a matter for Parliament to decide and not the monarch. In 2013 Lord Berkeley presented a Private Member’s Bill, the Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill, that, among other things, would abolish Consent. It had its Second Reading on 8 November 2013. Lord Berkeley’s Bill to abolish Consent itself required Consent from the Queen and Prince of Wales, which was duly granted on the advice of the government.



See above.


See above.


See above,





See above.



Says the poster that continually skews and warps history to suit his own agenda.

Tell me all about the Divine Right of Kings and the Magna Carta again. You've posted absolute garbage about them both, which merely shows your complete ignorance of what they actually were. To suggest that Divine Right of Kings operates as a doctrine for the modern constitutional monarchy is laughable. Your claim that the Magna Carta came from the demands of the "people" is also ridiculous.

divine right is nor more bullshit that bloodlines is . you're all for that apparently.

 

[peetoo]

Having seen Charles coronation it underlined its all about the church heirarchy.

Interesting to see if William can stomach that aspect given he’s not that religious. By all reports

 

[Roylion]

divine right is nor more bullshit that bloodlines is . you're all for that apparently.

Divine right doesn't exist. The hereditary aspect of a constitutional monarchy does exist. And not just in Britain and the Commonwealth.

Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Jordan, Japan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Lesotho, Bhutan, Monaco and Tonga all have hereditary constitutional monarchies with varying degrees of monarchial authority. Rwanda, Burundi, Fiji, Benin and Malawi have subnational monarchies.

Eswatini, Brunei, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are hereditary absolute monrchies.

In Malaysia for example, nine of the thirteen states of Malaysia have constitutional monarchs (eight of which are hereditary, the other monarch is elected by four hereditary chieftains of that state). These nine monarchs (called the 'Rulers') elect from amongst their number the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("He who is made Lord"), who becomes the Head of State for a five year term. The selection of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong usually follows an order based on the seniority (calculated by length of reign) of each ruler, although this can be varied at the discretion of the Conference of Rulers.

Even in some republics there has been an hereditary aspect to them.

For example:

Paraguay: José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia (1814-1840), succeeded by his nephew Carlos Antonio López (1840-1862), succeeded by his son, Francisco Solano López (1862-1870)

El Salvador: Carlos Meléndez (1915-1918), succeeded by his brother Jorge Meléndez (1919-1923), succeeded by his brother-in-law Alfonso Quiñónez Molina (acting 1918-1919, 1923-1927)

Nicaragua: Anastasio Somoza García (1937-1947, 1950-1956), succeeded by his son Luis Somoza Debayle (1956-1963, de facto 1963-1967), succeeded by his brother Anastasio Somoza Debayle (1967-1972, de facto 1972-1974, 1974-1979)

North Korea: Kim Il-sung (1948-1994), succeeded by his son Kim Jong-il (1994-2011), succeeded bh hus son Kin Jong-Un (2011- ). Kim Jong-il didn't officially take office until 1997, when his father was given the position of Eternal President.

Haiti: François Duvalier (1957-1971), succeeded by his son Jean-Claude Duvalier (1971-1986)

Syria: Hafez al-Assad (1971-2000), succeeded by his son Bashar al-Assad (2000- ). Bashar's elder brother, Basil al-Assad, had been designated for the presidency but died in 1994, six years prior to his father's death.

Azerbaijan: Heydar Aliyev (1993-2003), succeeded by his son Ilham Aliyev (2003-present)

The hereditary aspect isn't that foreign to Australia either.

Australian family law is also built on the notion of inheritance and heredity. None of that relates to 'divine right'.

Many Australian private enterprises are already hereditary 'positions' (for want of a better word). Some are political dynasties, where family connections can assist considerably in being elected to public office. Packer, Murdoch, Downer, MacArthur, Wright, Myer, Durack and De Bortoli are examples of influential, hereditary Australian family enterprises that have had considerable influence on Australian society through various means, whether through retail, big business or politics. The Republic of the United States also has plenty of examples, with the Bush and Kennedy families prominent for example. The Kennedy family is widely spoken as almost the 'de-facto' American royal family.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Divine right doesn't exist. The hereditary aspect of a constitutional monarchy does exist. And not just in Britain and the Commonwealth.

Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Jordan, Japan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Lesotho, Bhutan, Monaco and Tonga all have hereditary constitutional monarchies with varying degrees of monarchial authority. Rwanda, Burundi, Fiji, Benin and Malawi have subnational monarchies.

Eswatini, Brunei, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are hereditary absolute monrchies.

In Malaysia for example, nine of the thirteen states of Malaysia have constitutional monarchs (eight of which are hereditary, the other monarch is elected by four hereditary chieftains of that state). These nine monarchs (called the 'Rulers') elect from amongst their number the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("He who is made Lord"), who becomes the Head of State for a five year term. The selection of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong usually follows an order based on the seniority (calculated by length of reign) of each ruler, although this can be varied at the discretion of the Conference of Rulers.

Even in some republics there has been an hereditary aspect to them.

For example:

Paraguay: José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia (1814-1840), succeeded by his nephew Carlos Antonio López (1840-1862), succeeded by his son, Francisco Solano López (1862-1870)

El Salvador: Carlos Meléndez (1915-1918), succeeded by his brother Jorge Meléndez (1919-1923), succeeded by his brother-in-law Alfonso Quiñónez Molina (acting 1918-1919, 1923-1927)

Nicaragua: Anastasio Somoza García (1937-1947, 1950-1956), succeeded by his son Luis Somoza Debayle (1956-1963, de facto 1963-1967), succeeded by his brother Anastasio Somoza Debayle (1967-1972, de facto 1972-1974, 1974-1979)

North Korea: Kim Il-sung (1948-1994), succeeded by his son Kim Jong-il (1994-2011), succeeded bh hus son Kin Jong-Un (2011- ). Kim Jong-il didn't officially take office until 1997, when his father was given the position of Eternal President.

Haiti: François Duvalier (1957-1971), succeeded by his son Jean-Claude Duvalier (1971-1986)

Syria: Hafez al-Assad (1971-2000), succeeded by his son Bashar al-Assad (2000- ). Bashar's elder brother, Basil al-Assad, had been designated for the presidency but died in 1994, six years prior to his father's death.

Azerbaijan: Heydar Aliyev (1993-2003), succeeded by his son Ilham Aliyev (2003-present)

The hereditary aspect isn't that foreign to Australia either.

Australian family law is also built on the notion of inheritance and heredity. None of that relates to 'divine right'.

Many Australian private enterprises are already hereditary 'positions' (for want of a better word). Some are political dynasties, where family connections can assist considerably in being elected to public office. Packer, Murdoch, Downer, MacArthur, Wright, Myer, Durack and De Bortoli are examples of influential, hereditary Australian family enterprises that have had considerable influence on Australian society through various means, whether through retail, big business or politics. The Republic of the United States also has plenty of examples, with the Bush and Kennedy families prominent for example. The Kennedy family is widely spoken as almost the 'de-facto' American royal family.

That fact that something exists hardly legitimises it. Comparing the Windsors to Murdoch and Packer is weird. Listing other countries that have hereditary monarchies is stupid even for you. Prince Andrew was one dead Charlie away from being our King. Acknowledge the depravity of this system.

 

[Roylion]

That fact that something exists hardly legitimises it.

My point was that the 'Divine Right of Kings' doesn't exist as a doctrine in support of a modern constitutional monarchy, whereas many countries today have an hereditary monarchial system.

Listing other countries that have hereditary monarchies is stupid even for you.

A hereditary head of state isn't that rare.

Prince Andrew was one dead Charlie away from being our King. Acknowledge the depravity of this system.

As I've said to you before, unsuitable candidates, for whatever reason, would be asked to abdicate the throne.

Edward VIII in 1936 is a good example. Wallis Simpson was perceived to be politically, morally and socially unsuitable as a prospective queen consort, so if 'King Andrew' similiarly had been regarded as morally and socially unsuitable as monarch because of allegations of criminal conduct, he would have been asked to step down, as Edward VIII was.

A royal abdication can be effected only by an Act of Parliament.

In any case, Andrew hasn't been second in line to the throne since 1982, when he was 22 years old.

 

[Number37]

Tell me all about the Divine Right of Kings and the Magna Carta again. You've posted absolute garbage about them both, which merely shows your complete ignorance of what they actually were. To suggest that Divine Right of Kings operates as a doctrine for the modern constitutional monarchy is laughable. Your claim that the Magna Carta came from the demands of the "people" is also ridiculous.

You said there was no divine right of Kings.
I never said the divine right of kings was a modern doctrine. You are just making shit up because you've been found out, again. Cut and paste stuff with zero critical thought.