Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I've always found that an interesting position that monarchists take.

    "The Queen has no real power, but behind the scenes she actually does exercise influence, but we can't actually tell you about when it does happen"
    Private audiences isn't quite influence. She simply speaks her mind. She has no means to force her will on the minister - she does not even have a vote, so she can't even vote for someone else.

    Honestly, compared to the lobbying, electioneering and bribery indulged in by private companies, the monarchy's constitutionally-bound private audience is positively benign.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Do you have a single citation for this completely ahistorical assertion?



    I'm sorry you don't seem capable of understanding the proposition. I invite you to go back and re-read it, but I'm not sure you'd get it even if you did.



    No, just precise. You claimed she's a qualified engineer. That has a precise meaning. She is not. It's not pedantry to point out when someone is making claims that are simply not true.



    By which you mean to say, I just got stung because I made a very silly assumption, and now I'm going to insult the armed forces of a country that's fought in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside Americans and Brits.

    In fact, I don't know anyone in the forces who has an attitude like that to fellow Anglosphere forces, so I question whether you actually have served.



    I thought wikipedia might be an easy place to start for you, considering you lack even basic understanding of logic.



    More shouty nonsense from a xenophobe.



    The Queen of Australia is the Head of State of Australia. Also, I'm a dual citizen. Also, Australia's monarchy is actually quite acceptable compared to the regressive and insipid British monarchy.

    Maybe you should travel to Australia sometime. I know it might take you a few years to save up, but well worth the expense.



    Err, yeah. I'm a dual British-Australian citizen. And I live in London.
    Lol and since your rhetoric has changed now from the bold long winded individual who first replied to single sentence retorts i think everyone who has rejected your views (Roughly above 60% when i voted) has seen how small mided and petty your argument has become.

    I retire now to debate with someone who can give worthy written replies instead of your mis-interpreted jibberish. Lol fought in Ahghanistan? Considering many know the numbers of Brits and Americans who formed the taskforce compared to europeans and of course, you, i think we need not to value your chest beating at all

    Lol you dont even know if i have or havnt been to australia! '^_^'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Eh? What? News to me. Got a link?
    I'd encourage you to read this fully-cited (from government archives and letters) article by the Samuel Griffith Society.

    http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/pap.../v19chap9.html

    I concede, it is beyond the mental capacities of most people to understand the distinction between the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom, the Queen in Right of Australia, the Queen in Right of New South Wales, and the corollary of who tenders ministerial advice to the Queen in Right of X, the residual links in which the United Kingdom tendered ministerial advice for the Queen in Right of New South Wales when such powers at the commonwealth level were tendered by the Australian Prime Minister for the Queen in Right of Australia.

    But you should certainly have a go. It's interesting stuff for anyone who wants to understand how the monarchy works.

    And you will read that the Palace continued to attack the proposed Australia Act despite emphatic advice tendered from her ministers in the Australian states, from the Australian federal ministers, and the vitiation of any objections by the British government and emphatic advice from the British Foreign Secretary (supported by PM Thatcher) that there was no basis to reject the advice tendered by Australian ministers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol and since your rhetoric has changed now from the bold long winded individual who first replied to single sentence retorts i think everyone who has rejected your views (Roughly above 60% when i voted) has seen how small mided and petty your argument has become.
    What are you talking about voting? Your posts have degenerated into mindless guff. Go, go, if you must.

    Lol fought in Ahghanistan? Considering many know the numbers of Brits and Americans who formed the taskforce compared to europeans
    Australians are Europeans?

    Lol you dont even know if i have or havnt been to australia! '^_^'
    You haven't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'd encourage you to read this fully-cited (from government archives and letters) article by the Samuel Griffith Society.

    http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/pap.../v19chap9.html

    I concede, it is beyond the mental capacities of most people to understand the distinction between the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom, the Queen in Right of Australia, the Queen in Right of New South Wales, and the corollary of who tenders ministerial advice to the Queen in Right of X, the residual links in which the United Kingdom tendered ministerial advice for the Queen in Right of New South Wales when such powers at the commonwealth level were tendered by the Australian Prime Minister for the Queen in Right of Australia.

    But you should certainly have a go. It's interesting stuff for anyone who wants to understand how the monarchy works.

    And you will read that the Palace continued to attack the proposed Australia Act despite emphatic advice tendered from her ministers in the Australian states, from the Australian federal ministers, and the vitiation of any objections by the British government and emphatic advice from the British Foreign Secretary (supported by PM Thatcher) that there was no basis to reject the advice tendered by Australian ministers.
    I've read through and I've found nothing particularly remarkable in it. Yes, the Palace said they disliked the Australia Act as it stood, but then it's within the Queen's rights to say so. She signed despite her misgivings and it's now law.

    What do you expect? That somehow the Queen disagreeing is an unconstitutional act? Or that she should just keep quiet and not fulfil her constitutional duty to make her views felt in private?

    What exactly is the problem here?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    I am not disagreeing with you, but I remember the Gough Whitlam goverment sacking, I was in uproar at the time, I could not believe how my vote could be overturned in such a way.
    I would say that the Queen of Australia acted correctly in forbearing to exercise the reserve power. It would have been different if Kerr had appointed Fraser but not called an immediate election. Also, it would undermine the exercise of the reserve power if a Prime Minister could remove a Governor-General to pre-empt being dismissed.

    I think the Australian monarchy is more acceptable (and in fact, I seek no constitutional change in that jurisdiction) because the Queen's only power under the constitution is to appoint the Governor-General on advice, and excepting reserve bills, the Queen of Australia does not have the legal capacity to exercise the powers of the Governor-General.

    Also, I find it acceptable insofar as the Australian people have chosen the monarchy through constitutional referenda, so the sovereignty of the monarchy is fundamentally derived from popular sovereignty (as the High Court case Sue v Hill makes quite clear).

    The fact that the Queen of Australia lives in London is neither here nor there, and the Queen is essentially used as a mechanism, rather than deified as being slightly more than human (if not quite a god). Also, the Royal Family exercises no behind the scenes influence, and Australia does not have to pa for upkeep of vast numbers of courtiers, flunkies, minor royals etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A head of state is an unnecessary outdated concept we aren't wolves we don't need a pack leader. Get rid of the monarchy now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I've read through and I've found nothing particularly remarkable in it. Yes, the Palace said they disliked the Australia Act as it stood, but then it's within the Queen's rights to say so. She signed despite her misgivings and it's now law.

    What do you expect? That somehow the Queen disagreeing is an unconstitutional act? Or that she should just keep quiet and not fulfil her constitutional duty to make her views felt in private?

    What exactly is the problem here?
    The Queen has no such constitutional duty as it relates to the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian states.

    And the claim that the Queen has no power or personal opinion is completely belied by the palace purporting to oppose a matter when she has been emphatically advised by her ministers in the Australian states, the Australian commonwealth and her British ministers.

    Edit: By the way, you claiming she signed despite misgivings shows you didn't read the article.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The amount of money that we'd lose from tourists, lots of them American, is not worth thinking about. It would be a major dent to the economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Flawed video. I've never had explained to me what 'lost yield through inflexibility' means. I suspect it's made up to overegg the pudding.
    As he said, business in the sector get 5% yield, the royal family's estate only gets 3.5%.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Australians are Europeans?
    You moron. Is australia in europe? Let me just get an Atlas... Nope noop its not. Are they part of the european union? Wait... no there not. A common wealth nation does not make you european you prat. I hope your not working on the stock exchange in London or were really screwed

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You haven't.
    Wrong again

    Really didnt want to reply to this but sometimes someone says something so stupid i just cant keep my fingers from the keyboards
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    The Queen has no such constitutional duty as it relates to the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian states.
    Yes she does. In this case especially so, as it involves the Crown of Australia directly.

    In most other cases, yes, it involves the Governor-General of Australia as her representative, but the Australia Act was a different kettle of fish.

    And the claim that the Queen has no power or personal opinion is completely belied by the palace purporting to oppose a matter when she has been emphatically advised by her ministers in the Australian states, the Australian commonwealth and her British ministers.
    I never said she has no personal opinions. I'm sure she has plenty. But she does not expose them publicly.

    Edit: By the way, you claiming she signed despite misgivings shows you didn't read the article.
    If you say so. I'm doing lots of other things simultaneously (I do have a life, hard as it may seem )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    You moron. Is australia in europe? Let me just get an Atlas... Nope noop its not. Are they part of the european union? Wait... no there not. A common wealth nation does not make you european you prat. I hope your not working on the stock exchange in London or were really screwed
    Poor dear, you seem to have confused yourself. You asserted that the contribution of Australians falls under the category of Europeans

    I retire now to debate with someone who can give worthy written replies instead of your mis-interpreted jibberish. Lol fought in Ahghanistan? Considering many know the numbers of Brits and Americans who formed the taskforce compared to europeans
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Yes she does. In this case especially so, as it involves the Crown of Australia directly

    In most other cases, yes, it involves the Governor-General of Australia as her representative, but the Australia Act was a different kettle of fish.
    I don't think you've understood either the article, or the general constitutional situation directly. How does the Queen have any constitutional duty when "it involves the Crown of Australia directly"? And what does that have to do with the article?

    The whole point is that the Queen would only have such a constitutional duty, which only exists in the UK constitution and only then as a convention, when she was accepting advice from British ministers in respect of her role as the Queen in Right of X(Australian state), not as the Queen in Right of Australia.

    If you say so. I'm doing lots of other things simultaneously (I do have a life, hard as it may seem )
    That's cool, just thought it might be better for you to admit you neither read it nor understood it, and thus don't really understand the monarchy more broadly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    Wrong again
    Nope. You haven't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddlesnap)
    The amount of money that we'd lose from tourists, lots of them American, is not worth thinking about. It would be a major dent to the economy.
    American tourists would stop coming here if there was no longer a monarchy?

    That must explain why I never see any Americans in Paris.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Poor dear, you seem to have confused yourself. You asserted that the contribution of Australians falls under the category of Europeans
    Hey if u cant explain what your thinking in writing perhaps you shouldnt write on a forum

    You said and quote 'Australians are Europeans?'

    Now even a pedantic fellow and stickler for detail like yourself wouldnt have let that one go

    No where in that quote does it mention contributions but i guess you expect everyone who reads these forums to trawl through your every word so they can understand what the hell your trying to say.

    Then again, they probably dont have as much time as i do on leisurely saturday
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    This is true, but it just perpetuates the idea of privelege. It is broke, as broke as it was when we changed from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarchy, and that was fixed.
    I do not have a problem with the privilege that the monarchy exhibits. Right now, nothing about it is broken.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I don't think you've understood either the article, or the general constitutional situation directly. How does the Queen have any constitutional duty when "it involves the Crown of Australia directly"? And what does that have to do with the article?

    The whole point is that the Queen would only have such a constitutional duty, which only exists in the UK constitution and only then as a convention, when she was accepting advice from British ministers in respect of her role as the Queen in Right of X(Australian state), not as the Queen in Right of Australia.
    Not in this case. In this case, as Queen of Australia and with a Bill directly involving the Crown of Australia, she has a direct involvement. But with regard to the Bill before the UK Parliament, she also has involvement there, too.

    Normally, yes, her roles as Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom would be distinct, but this was one of those occasional overlaps.

    That's cool, just thought it might be better for you to admit you neither read it nor understood it, and thus don't really understand the monarchy more broadly.
    I did read it, but I'll open up the possibility that I didn't read it closely enough. Perhaps you could highlight the bits you find of note?

    In any case, the matter doesn't really encompass the UK keeping or ditching the monarchy. How other Commonwealth Realms configure the monarchy to suit their needs is their concern.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Not in this case. In this case, as Queen of Australia and with a Bill directly involving the Crown of Australia, she has a direct involvement. But with regard to the Bill before the UK Parliament, she also has involvement there, too.

    I did read it, but I'll open up the possibility that I didn't read it closely enough. Perhaps you could highlight the bits you find of note?
    In respect of a bill that is yet to pass through the UK parliament, do you think the Queen is in a position to negotiate and be, essentially, an independent centre of power?

    Specifically, she was advised emphatically by her British ministers in respect of their role as the advisors to the Queen for the Australian states and their role as ministerial advisers in respect of the United Kingdom (which would pass the complementary Australia Act... it had to be in both the UK and Australian parliament), and by her Australian ministers, state and commonwealth.

    In the end, the intransigence of the monarch forced the British and Australian governments to concede that the Queen would be able to exercise viceregal powers in respect of the states when she was physically present there. (The idea is that she didn't want to receive conflicting advice... for example, when she was present in New South Wales, be advised by the NSW Premier to deliver a speech as Queen-in-Parliament attacking the Commonwealth government, or vice-versa)

    Now, as a matter of principle, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; it's actually a fairly sensible position from the monarch. But how we came to this position (i.e. complete refusal by the palace to accept advice) completely and utterly shatters the argument that the monarch and palace have no power and that they are mere vestigial creatures.

    Personally, I think it's important a head of state has some residual but real power, but the question is then... how are they accountable for the exercise of that power? My point is that this is far more complex (and interesting!) than the usual (childish, naive) monarchist arguments that the Queen is just a nice old granny who probably watches East Enders and has no real influence or personal agency in power politics and constitutional issues.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.