The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 12-17-2007, 04:13 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
I see, so the 61p game isn't enough for her? The 'Duchy of Lancaster' is another one of those things that grates on me, the same with Cornwall. Just think that the country could do with that money - it's rightfully ours. And if she ceased to be Queen, I'll bet you my stocking tops that that money would most certainly not go in her handbag but in the Bank of the British people where it belongs. You know it and I know it, it's a total fudge.
The 61p doesn't go into her handbag, it goes to cover the costs a head of state incurs when heading a state, like travel costs. Most of those costs wouldn't change with a President, as a President would have to travel, and would probably travel more as I don't think anybody would want a President's sister to open their cancer ward or school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Who's chosen not remove it? How can they when there's an old boys club set up nationally to prevent it. The Lords, the Church, all that guff.
If the House of Commons wanted it gone, it could be gone, admittedly with a lot of work to rewrite all the old laws. It would just take 3 sessions (which can be accelerated) to overrule the House of Lords via the Parliament Acts. The Prime Minister could also pack the Lords with Republicans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
A proper constitution means that we all know where we stand and so when Mr Brown introduces it to us, as he said he would, I'll be supporting the idea very firmly.
I hope it's a very thorough constitution, then, because I know that the US Constitution is just about as vague in execution as the British constitution is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The monarchy does take away rights from the people. It takes away their right to elect their Head of State. It takes away their right to have direct control over their government. Thats undemocratic.
But why should people be able to elect the Head of State? If the head of state had "direct control over the government," I might understand, but unless the Queen has been wonderfully hiding the fact that she beats her Prime Ministers with a cat o' 9 tails or something when they come over, I don't think she has that level of control.

Who all should be elected? The head of state? Ambassadors? Police officers? The local bus driver? Personally, I'd like to elect the last, but I doubt that will happen.

The people have the right today to form and elect a republican party. They could have the Queen and all her family gone within a year or two after that election, probably. They have chosen not to. That is democracy at work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
It just so happens that that democracy can only be served to the people when there isn't a monarchy involved.
You've never proven that, though. All you've done is give some vagaries about not being the country not being democratic because not enough people are elected.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 12-17-2007, 04:37 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
You might want to check with our Australian members about how the Queen has never dismissed a Prime Minister.
It was actually our Governor-General who dismissed a Prime Minister. Our Constitution gives him that power. Here is a copy of Sir John Kerr's Statement of Reasons for dismissing the Whitlam Government:

The Whitlam Dismissal - Kerr's Statement of Reasons

HM didn't want anything to do with it all. Here's a copy of a letter from the Queen's Private Secretary in response to the Speaker of the House of Representatives' request her Majesty restore the Prime Minister:

The Whitlam Dismissal: Letter from the Queen's Private Secretary
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:10 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I remember when it happened (ain't old age fun...); I know it was the Governor-General who did it, but he's supposed to be the Queen's representative, so it's the Australian equivalent of the Queen doing it. I mean, the principle is the same even if the individuals were different, and it shows that this power isn't simply theoretical. Mind you, if a Governor General were to try something similar these days, it may well be the last thing that happened before Australia became a republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:41 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Australia's upper house is more powerful than the House of Lords, which is what caused the issue to begin with. The Australian Senate can block supply, whereas the Lords can only delay it for a month.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 12-18-2007, 06:39 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
There is another instance of the exercise of the reserve powers of the Crown: in 1932 the Premier of New South Wales was dismissed by the Governor because of the Premier's refusal to comply with a Federal law which had been upheld by the High Court. In both the 1932 and 1975 cases the ensuing general election did not restore either the deposed Premier or the deposed Prime Minister to office.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:18 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by milla Ca View Post
To compare posters (or someone else) with supporters of Nazi Germany ,without having a true reason, can i never tolerate. The Nazi regime in Germany from 1933-45 was the worst possible dictatorship. Millions of people died because of it. Everybody should think about it, or be informed about it, before using these kind of comparison.

Sorry. i know im out of topic and one of the moderators will delete my post.
But i had to say it!
I doubt many of the posters are aware what comprised Dr. Joseph Goebbels' views on communication (there were none of "Nazi-Germany" but it was this evil person who thought up what became known as propaganda). As he is undoubtedly the most copied inventor or explorer of marketing and advertisment tricks, we should rather agree that some forms of communication work in such a way that it is not polite to use them when dealing with people you appreciate for their taking part in a discussion.

BTW - I believe all German members on this forum would be thankful if any future reference to Nazi-Germany would be thought over twice as not to offend us. Thank you very much in advance.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Jo, milla Ca is also German (if that makes any difference to what you were saying).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Jo, milla Ca is also German (if that makes any difference to what you were saying).
Yes, I know. I just wanted to support her message. She is right, you know.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 12-18-2007, 05:23 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
BeatrixFan, before you know it, you will be shouting 'Long Live King Charles' and telling everyone you had your doubts about his son, William when he was a boy, but look how well he has turned out!
Charles, yep. Probably. I'm easily swayed by a bit of glitter. But William, no. Chavs just don't do it for me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:24 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
There is another instance of the exercise of the reserve powers of the Crown: in 1932 the Premier of New South Wales was dismissed by the Governor because of the Premier's refusal to comply with a Federal law which had been upheld by the High Court. In both the 1932 and 1975 cases the ensuing general election did not restore either the deposed Premier or the deposed Prime Minister to office.
I wasn't aware of the 1932 incident, but it's interesting that in each case the population supported the action at the next election.

Like Elspeth, I remember the events of November 1975 .

Whether the action was taken by the Governor/Governor-General in his own name or in the name of the Monarch, I like the fact that there is an un-elected office above that of the party-political Prime Minister, whose incumbent can take such steps on the rare occasions the need arises and acts as our ceremonial Head of State the rest of the time.

I'm edging back from my tentative republican leanings towards retaining the Constitutional Monarchy here.

When doing anything related to Australia HM is Queen of Australia. The Governor-General is her representative as Queen of Australia not as Queen of the UK, and he is our Head of State for all practical purposes when she is not here. Her Majesty's role as our Queen is not subservient to her role as Queen of the UK, but is an equal one, and Australia is not subservient to the UK. It's just that the same person is Queen of both. It seems to work. HM is, however, English, and her main role is Queen of the UK; I can live with that.

The briefest thoughts of what a change to a republic would mean here gives me a headache. There is so very much that would have to be thought about and discussed and planned and drafted and then changed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Even though we now have a republican Labor Prime Minister I hope the Republic stays on the back-burner here for a while. Maybe it will all fizzle out due to lack of interest.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 12-18-2007, 10:00 PM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Charles, yep. Probably. I'm easily swayed by a bit of glitter. But William, no. Chavs just don't do it for me.
Another hole in your argument against monarchy. Fantastic.

I have to admit this thread has become rather - how shall I say - refreshing.


With regards to the whole change of government, and royalism and what not. Would it not be best to agree to disagree?

I think there is always room for change and no system is perfect so a review on our own consitution would be greatly received by any politically enclined person in the UK, as there is always the potential to make things better.

I will agree on some things with BeatrixFan, the monarchy is un-democratic, to the point of un-election. However, as the Queen plays no role in government other than ceremonial, I think the system IS democratic at the same time. It would be totally un-democratic if the Queen was a ruler, instead of a monarch who reigns. The latter part of that sentence being of the most importance for the arguments in this topic.

People look to the reigning monarch for guidance, solidarity, peace, advice, ceremony, family values etc etc, do you honestly think that the public (UK) are going to take to a 4-5 year presidency when they have to change or alter or grow attached to another figurehead?

With a life-serving monarch, there is no change, there is always the same face, the same warm hearted woman who has been the Queen for over 55 years now.

The Queen is only queen through the accident of birth (as they say), so with that being said, do you not think the Queen may also feel the same way? Sometimes, she may not want to see a diplomat from Hong Kong or open a new school sometimes, however she does it without a glimmer or boredness or attitude.
I think it's perhaps easier for us to call for an end to the institution of monarchy without actually understanding the effect of monarchy on a whole. I am in now way saying that the opinions voices in this thread are un-informed, but looking at things from another perspective, what reasons would the public have to ending the monarchy?
The idea of a president of the UK is bewildering.
France had a monarchy and abolished that with a system of government which had an elected president as an executive authority, which is brilliant. Someone who is elected by the people for the people. In the UK, the system is similar and applies as such.
The people elect a Prime Minister, he/she goes to Buckingham Palace, kisses the Queen's hand, accepts the job, and HM Government is formed.
The system is of no difference to any other model, in theory.

The monarchy plays an integral part in our society, yet I do know fully, that we can operate without a King or Queen.

But why would we want to?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 12-19-2007, 07:06 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
There's no holes in my argument, it's not an argument, it's a point of view and I can't prove a point of view. For me, whether monarchy or republic, I don't mind as long as people are being treated fairly. I happen to think that in a republic they'd be treated more fairly and as you say, monarchy is undemocratic. But whether monarchy or republic, I retain my right to criticise because at the end of the day, if it's Liz or Vaira, I'm the one paying for it. Oh well, I've had my tuppence. There we are.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 12-19-2007, 07:15 AM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
BeatrixFan, before you know it, you will be shouting 'Long Live King Charles' and telling everyone you had your doubts about his son, William when he was a boy, but look how well he has turned out!
I have just descovered this topic and what Skydragon has quote above I truly believe to be correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
I have to admit this thread has become rather - how shall I say - refreshing...
The above statements by KingCharles to me said it all for this topic. I am not a British citizen, but as a American I sometimes feel that the last two elections-well-they were so close-fixed. I think each citizen sometimes feel dissatified with their country's ways. But look as an American I just love all royalty. I can not get enough of it. I think with Great Britian's royalty gone they would miss it.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 12-21-2007, 05:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,032
At the end of the day I think the biggest enemy of the Monarchy's survival is a lack of respect among the new generation of citizens. Even those who don't believe the institution has relevance anymore respect the Queen but William and Harry really don't inspire the future generation, indeed their antics basically get on the nerves of all the people in their twenties and thirties that I know. Bar bills running into thousands when most young people starting out can't get a first time mortgage on a house and joining the army but seemingly spending most of their time on exotic holidays and rugby matches instead of going to war and please don't mention that Harry wasn't allowed to go to Iraq, he said in his 21st birthday interview he would resign if he wasn't sent and he didn't but even then there are other useful things the army does all of which seem to have passed him and William by.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 12-22-2007, 02:56 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Australia's upper house is more powerful than the House of Lords, which is what caused the issue to begin with. The Australian Senate can block supply, whereas the Lords can only delay it for a month.
Apologies for coming to this so very late. I think it important enough to comment on, however.

The government of Australia resides in the House of Representatives, i.e. The Commons. The Senate, purportedly, is the States' House of Review, though these days, political parties dominate not the individual States' interests.

If the Senate declines to pass any Bill, twice, then the PM, the Leader of the House of Representatives, may call a a double dissolution. Parties which may be in the minority in the House of Reps but may control the Senate generally don't like this as a double dissolution, ie. a full Senate and House of Representatives election, invariably ends with one party, usually Labor, dominant in the Senate. The party presenting the obstacle usually fares poorly.

In my opinion, Australia is a naturally and traditionally conservative Labor nation due to historical formations. Because of our unique voting system (compulsory universal voting, and a preferential system) Labor doesn't always win, even if that party generally obtains the most primary votes. What it does mean in practical terms is that the conservative coalition partners often end up with preferential votes which tip them over the line (neither coalition party would ever have a hope of succeeding under their own steam).

1975 was an aberration. The Governor-General spoke to HM first. When the PM subsequently rang her, she said that now there was nothing to be done as her representative had already acted. This will never, ever, happen again. HM was, reportedly, singularly distressed over this controversy, and, allegedly, upset that this had occurred in 'her name'.

In legal circles this has always been a contentious issue and not only because immediately the GG installed the opposition leader as PM, a vote of 'no confidence' was carried in the House of Reps denying him the position, but with the GG' support, the erstwhile Opposition Leader was empowered to continue as PM. In our inherited Westminster system, this was the first and only time where this had occurred, anywhere in the world, and was in total negation of Runnymede, which has formed the basis for governance throughout Britain and her empire for 800 years. At a personal level, and even though I would certainly not have supported the government which was dismissed, as I am a believer in the rule of law above all, I remain disgusted and outraged at what eventuated. To me, it's a blot on Australia's constitutional history and I despise those who traduced our valuable and incomparable Westminster traditions for what proved to be short term gain.

In a legal sense, it has been an open sore for some time. Some blame HM, entirely, others blame the Constitution, and a few blame those who, allegedly, pocketed huge sums of money over the 'deal'.

The new Australian Labor PM has said that he won't press for a republic in this term. He doesn't seem to think that it's vitally important compared to his 'democratic Christian' agenda. What I think will probably happen is that within a few years, we'll be asked,simply, if we wish Australia to be a republic, details to be worked out later. If and when that occurs, the answer will be, in my opinion, a resounding 'yes'. Last time, the vote had entirely demarcated into a futile debate over the mechanism for electing a President, which is why it was lost.

To end where I began.....the Senate does not hold stronger powers than the House of Reps. Our government is formed by whoever holds the majority in the House of Representatives.

The Whitlam government, which would have lost the next election anyway, was dismissed only and entirely by the Governor General, and to my mind, this wasn't acceptable. It did, though, unfairly, hammer the last nail into Australia's royal coffin. It's very sad but a truism, that The Crown, in a constitutional sense, is held, by many, eminently culpable in all of this. Poor Queen Elizabeth was caught, right royally, between a rock and a hard place!

To those who repeat, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', I can only reply that many of my friends and family, generally speaking, a politically conservative crew, almost to a man and woman want Australia to be a Republic. 1975 looms large in their perspective, and all that's saved The Crown, I believe, is the admiration which is genuinely felt for our Queen.

And although I like her and think her a great asset to the Royal Family, the bottom line is that most Australians, or at least those with whom I discuss these matters, just don't like Camilla and simply will never accept her as Queen. On the other hand, neither she nor Charles needs Australia, so who's the most to lose?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 12-22-2007, 03:39 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
To end where I began.....the Senate does not hold stronger powers than the House of Reps. Our government is formed by whoever holds the majority in the House of Representatives.
I never said it was. I said that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Lords is in the UK. Australia has a far more powerful upper house than the UK. The most the Lords can do is be petulant and whine for a while. The Australian Senate can block supply, which is quite important in constitutional convention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
1975 was an aberration. The Governor-General spoke to HM first. When the PM subsequently rang her, she said that now there was nothing to be done as her representative had already acted. This will never, ever, happen again. HM was, reportedly, singularly distressed over this controversy, and, allegedly, upset that this had occurred in 'her name'.
Did Kerr actually contact HM beforehand? From what I remember from a segment I saw where Whitlam was talking the events of 1975, the palace had no idea what had happened when he rang them shortly afterwards, and Whitlam seemed shocked that Kerr "wouldn't inform his sovereign lady" about actions he was about to carry out in her name.

EDIT: Never mind, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
In legal circles this has always been a contentious issue and not only because immediately the GG installed the opposition leader as PM, a vote of 'no confidence' was carried in the House of Reps denying him the position, but with the GG' support, the erstwhile Opposition Leader was empowered to continue as PM.
Wasn't that because Parliament had already been dissolved by the time the news of the no confidence vote made it to Government House? Fraser was appointed on the condition that he would immediately advise a double dissolution, and if he truly was immediate, the proclamations of dissolution would have already been on their way to be read.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 12-22-2007, 05:19 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Wasn't that because Parliament had already been dissolved by the time the news of the no confidence vote made it to Government House? Fraser was appointed on the condition that he would immediately advise a double dissolution, and if he truly was immediate, the proclamations of dissolution would have already been on their way to be read.
I think the situation was actually that the G-G managed to avoid seeing the person who went to deliver the news of the no confidence vote for an hour or two until after parliament had been dissolved.

As a lawyer who entered law school in 1977, I am very, very well aware of how contentious this issue was, and still is, in legal circles here. However I have never been able to feel the rage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 12-23-2007, 10:53 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 655
I've never lost my sense of rage about this, Roslyn. To me, it is beyond party politics. Denigrating a nation's raison d'etre has always presented itself as an abhorrence, to my mind.

And again, wbenson, the Australian Senate can only block any bill twice. The PM can then dismiss both Houses. In 1975 it didn't even come to that - the Senate threatened to block supply for a second time - many senators were uncomfortable and unhappy at what their conservative party's apparatchiks were telling them to do and, it's often mooted, would not have carried out their party's threats. Consequently, the Governor General's unilateral recourse to the Royal Prerogative. And there's the rub!

It has frequently be remarked that The Queen would never dare do such a thing in her own country, i.e dismiss a government which had the majority in The Commons.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 12-23-2007, 11:30 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
And again, wbenson, the Australian Senate can only block any bill twice. The PM can then dismiss both Houses.
I know. That's what makes it more powerful than the House of Lords by far. Even after a double dissolution, the Senate still has a voice in whether or not the bills pass. Their opinion is never able to be completely discounted (though it is diluted if a joint session ever happens).

The Lords can simply be ignored after anywhere from 30 days to 2 (?) years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 12-24-2007, 03:29 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
The PM can then dismiss both Houses.
Slight nitpicking, but it's the GG who has the power to dissolve Parliament, by convention on the advice of the Prime Minister. In 1975 the newly-appointed PM did not have the confidence of the House of Representatives but the GG acted on his advice regardless and called the double dissolution.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
finances, monarchy versus republic


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 05-10-2006 05:01 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman poland pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]