Society/Culture The house of Windsor

[Roylion]

i wish we could have a population swap with the UK, people who want a monarchy get shipped back to the motherland they love so much and we get all the people with brains, fair trade everybody wins.

It's little to do with the so-called "motherland". I'm part Irish for a start with some non-European ancestry. It's far more to do with seeing the system of constitutional monarchy as being superior to that of a republic.

 

[M Malice]

Regardless the office of a head of state that is elected becomes politicised. The Queen by virtue of the hereditary aspect is able to stand outside politics to fulfil her role which is to personify the nation and act as a constitutional "umpire" by application of the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). This is the system I would prefer Australia to have.

fair enough roylion your points as always are very articulate, logical and commonsense based. from here i think we would just be going round in circles, we will just have to agree to disagree on the merits and possible alternatives to the royal system.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It's litle to do with the so-called "motherland". I'm Irish for a start. It's far more to do with seeing the system of constitutional monarchy as being superior to that of a republic.

So you don't consider yourself Australian? a common trait among the supporters of royals. But i digress there's no functional change in the way our country would be run other then the head of state not being above reproach.

 

[Roylion]

So you don't consider yourself Australian? a common trait among the supporters of royals.

Of course I'm Australian. I was born here, as were my parents. Some of my ancestors were convicts, both Irish and English. And I have some non-European ancestry who were migrants to Australia.

The Crown is the Crown of Australia.

 

[Father Jack]

I don't see Australia's political system as being so rickety that it will fall apart if we have an elected HoS. Could you please give me some examples of how an Australian head of state could potentially turn us into a basket case?

 

[Roylion]

I don't see Australia's political system as being so rickety that it will fall apart if we have an elected HoS. Could you please give me some examples of how an Australian head of state could potentially turn us into a basket case?

Where have I ever said having an Australian Head of State would turn us into a "basket case"?

What I have said is I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to that of a republic for reasons I have already outlined.

I've also made the point that the Crown is an Australian Crown. The Crown of Australia is legally and politically independent from the Crown of Great Britain. In no way does being a Constitutional monarchy make us subservient to Britain - legally or politically.

 

[Father Jack]

Where have I ever said having an Australian Head of State would turn us into a "basket case"?

What I have said is I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to that of a republic for reasons I have already outlined.

I've also made the point that the Crown is an Australian Crown. The Crown of Australia is legally and politically independent from the Crown of Great Britain. In no way does being a Constitutional monarchy make us subservient to Britain - legally or politically.

Then what is the issue with an Australian head of state if the country won't fall apart? And you can dress it up in legalese all you like, but the fact remains that our head of state is British, lives in Britain, cannot be Australian and only very rarely visits our country. There might not be an explicit subservience there, but like the flag exemplifies, it is most certainly there.

 

[Roylion]

Then what is the issue with an Australian head of state if the country won't fall apart?

Once again. I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy for the following reasons.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. The monarch reigns but does not rule. As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often comes from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

And you can dress it up in legalese all you like, but the fact remains that our head of state is British, lives in Britain, cannot be Australian and only very rarely visits our country.

The fact remains that the Crown is Australian. The Australian Crown is separate from the British Crown.

There might not be an explicit subservience there, but like the flag exemplifies, it is most certainly there.

I don't see it that way. Any perceived "subservience" is in my view imaginary. While the flag is another issue, I have no objections to changing it like New Zealand is currently doing.

 

[The Punter]

Theoretically...

If the head of state is directly elected, then they can become a separate base of power from the parliament.
If the head of state is appointed by the parliament, they may feel loyalty to the parliament that appointed them, rather than the one they have now.
If there is a change to the constitution in this regard, will reserve powers be changed or abolished?

A fair and reasonable argument can be made for the change to be as seamless as possible and for the stability of our system to remain. But first that stability needs to be guaranteed as much as possible, and those who want to move to a republic need to agree on a system before a referendum can occur.

And all this would cost a good deal of money, when we have a stable system as of now.

 

[Father Jack]

Yes, it would cost too much to have an Australian Head of State, may as well keep on using the cheap imported version we have now

 

[Power Raid]

How do you know this? Like other junior commissioned officers, Charles passed the examination and began his career as a Sub- Lieutenant in the Royal Navy. This became the most junior commissioned rank and the only route to promotion to Lieutenant. He was promoted to Lieutenant by the end of his active service in the Royal Navy. Lieutenants can command ships where they are known as Lieutenant-Commanders.

Charles is not unintelligent. He graduated from Cambridge, the first heir apparent to earn a university degree so he'd be certainly capable of passing a Lieutenant's examination on his own merits, rather than it being gifted to him on his account of his "connections". He was also the first heir to the throne to sit public examinations.

Lieutenant-Commander is a rank not a Lieutenant in a command position.you could be a Lieutenant-Commander and never set foot on a boat (ie a chaplin, doctor).

from memory one has to serve a minimum of 4 years as Lieutenant before being considered for promotion to Lieutenant-Commander. The another 4 years before being considered promotion to Captain. Lieutenant-Commander is also the first rank that you keep for life, whereas you lose your title as Lieutenant, or below, when leaving service.

 

[little graham]

As the son of a soldier she sent to africa at 18 years old to do the thieving, this meme is spot on.

 

[Procrastinator35]

As the son of a soldier she sent to africa at 18 years old to do the thieving, this meme is spot on.

 

[Roylion]

As the son of a soldier she sent to africa at 18 years old to do the thieving, this meme is spot on.

"She" sent him to Africa did she?

While the Queen is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the exercise of the Royal Prerogative Powers in regards to the military is the Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State for Defence. The PM with the support of Cabinet makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice only does so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.

Peter Leyland in his Textbook on Administrative Law stated that "The present Queen ... is kept very closely in touch with the exercise of governmental power by means of a weekly audience with the prime minister during which she is fully briefed about the affairs of government ... [But it] should be emphasised that the prime minister is not under any obligation to take account of royal opinions."

 

[Power Raid]

"She" sent him to Africa did she?

While the Queen is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the exercise of the Royal Prerogative Powers in regards to the military is the Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State for Defence. The PM with the support of Cabinet makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice only does so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.

Peter Leyland in his Textbook on Administrative Law stated that "The present Queen ... is kept very closely in touch with the exercise of governmental power by means of a weekly audience with the prime minister during which she is fully briefed about the affairs of government ... [But it] should be emphasised that the prime minister is not under any obligation to take account of royal opinions."

don't let the facts get in the way of a good meme

 

[little graham]

"She" sent him to Africa did she?

While the Queen is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the exercise of the Royal Prerogative Powers in regards to the military is the Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State for Defence. The PM with the support of Cabinet makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice only does so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.

Peter Leyland in his Textbook on Administrative Law stated that "The present Queen ... is kept very closely in touch with the exercise of governmental power by means of a weekly audience with the prime minister during which she is fully briefed about the affairs of government ... [But it] should be emphasised that the prime minister is not under any obligation to take account of royal opinions."

You don't know if you're arthur or martha do you?

Seriously you've been dribbling shit about how good the British system is and what she does for us, then you post this.

 

[Roylion]

don't let the facts get in the way of a good meme

It wasn't even a good meme.

 

[Power Raid]

As the son of a soldier she sent to africa at 18 years old to do the thieving, this meme is spot on.

I'd be interested to know which war and what repatriations were made

do you have any facts?

and PS. as per above, you meant the UK government rather than the royal family

 

[Roylion]

You don't know if you're arthur or martha do you?

Seriously you've been dribbling shit about how good the British system is and what she does for us, then you post this.

And you clearly haven't understood a word I've said. Do you actually understand the meaning of "constitutional monarchy"?

 

[Power Raid]

It wasn't even a good meme.

just another detail getting in the way of good story

 

[little graham]

This guy campaigns for animal rights then does this.

But i suppose thats what you get with a basterd child.

and by the way, one of the most admired men in my view is his step father. He's been put through hell born into that family, the queen has personally seen his character trashed so she could remain queen.

 

[Roylion]

and by the way, one of the most admired men in my view is his step father.

Any issue that paternity of Prince Charles' two sons could be doubtful was ended a long time ago by the appropriate DNA tests. Charles has two sons and two grandchildren. But once again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

He's been put through hell born into that family, the queen has personally seen his character trashed so she could remain queen.

You really don't understand the meaning of "constitutional monarchy" do you. If you did understand it, that above statement you made is nonsensical.

 

[little graham]

Alot of people doing it hard, alot of people suffered so she can live like she does.

 

[Roylion]

$30 trillion? Yeah sure. Where did you pull this figure from? Don't tell me. I think I can guess.

According to Bloom Billionaires Index the Queen is worth £277 million, which is 3% of the wealth of the richest Briton, Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, who in September 2015 was worth £94 billion

The total wealth of all known billionaires throughout the world is $3 trillion, so for the Queen to be worth 10 times that on her own is laughable.

The Monarchy has around £20bn in tangible assets. These include the 775-room Buckingham Palace and other Royal residences, the Crown Jewels, and the Royal Art Collection.

However, these assets are NOT the Queen’s private property.

Anything else you'd like to know?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Alot of people doing it hard, alot of people suffered so she can live like she does.

I think you might be jumping to the wrong conclusion there m8....That piccy was taken immediately after she accidentally trod in some Corgi doggy do's; & was captured at the precise moment she caught her first whiff of it.....'Footman, I say....Over here squire....There's a jolly good fellow now'.