Where Does Everyone See The Monarchy in 50 to 100 Years?

[Skydragon]

But if for example prince William "asks" something of a fellow cadet - isn't he as an "heir" (a direct line heir as that) of the queen higher in rank per se as the commanding officer? I mean, is it by free decision of prince William that he accepts the authority of his commanding officer?

His allegiance is to his sovereign, if officers appointed by her and of a higher rank than him give him an order, he would have to obey it, unless it was 'against' said sovereign.

His rank within the forces takes precedent over his line in the succession (although not in the LoS, the army chief was General, Sir Mike Jackson).

 

[Skydragon]

Actually it was carried out by the Scotsman Newspaper which has always been a supporter of the union. I don't know how many people were asked but if you go on to the Scotsman web site you might find out.

Well we had better not debate who the Scotsman has supported in the past here. I had a look and they do not give a figure as to how many people were asked by ICM but, they do concede that very many people who take part in these polls, do not always vote in the way they indicated in the poll. The poll concerned how people would vote, nothing about independence or the monarchy.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1615112006

 

[Oppie]

One of the reasons that I always thought a monarchy was a good idea is because it keeps politicans from being the most important people in the country. I think it keeps a clear line between supporting X politics to supporting X country.

Maybe to get this thread going in a new directions (because I honestly can't understand why someone would be on a Royal Message Forum when they thought that royalty should be abolished)

50-100 years. I recently wrote a paper on Canadian-X foreign realtions and in my research I came across a few orgainziations in the Carribean that supported the idea of joining with Canada. To the point that there has been informal talks about Turks and Cacios becoming part of Nova Scotia. I have wondered instead of Australia ect leaving the Commonwealth the idea of splitting it up into three. One monarchy in Britian, One that would be based in Oceania and One in The Americas (Canada and Carribean). I think after awhile especially a generation these places would accept there monarch as being there own but they would still remain tied to the BRF. This has been done before, jr princes from one Royal Family becoming Kings of another.

Anyways I have said this before, I don't think Canada will become a republic anytime soon,the monarchy system is one of the things keeping our country together. But (and I think the World Cup example is a good one) the BRF has to keep reaching out to the Commonwealth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would love the idea of a junior member of the BRF becoming King/Queen of Australia in their own right but I suspect that the majority of those who support a republic would even oppose that idea.

Personally I love living in a constitutional monarchy but I don't expect to be living in one for too much longer (maybe ten years or so at most) as every poll that asks straight out 'Do you think Australia should be a republic' has a majority in the affirmative and has done so for quite a number of years - fortunately we have a canny PM who knew the population wouldn't agree to a president appointed by the parliament which is the way the question was put in 1999 and why it got a no vote.

 

[Roslyn]

I would love the idea of a junior member of the BRF becoming King/Queen of Australia in their own right but I suspect that the majority of those who support a republic would even oppose that idea.

Do you really mean that? I don't see a smiley. If you do mean it, you might find that the majority of those of us who support the status quo would oppose that idea.

Her Majesty is Queen of Australia because of the natural course of history since the Colonies were established here, and, as a descendant of English settlers, our Constitutional Monarchy with the English Queen or King as our Head of State feels right to me and I think the system works very well. However, that's largely because there is a mutual understanding that the monarch's role here is really only historical and ceremonial. I like having a Royal Family, but also like the fact that it lives a long way away and that we are in reality an independant nation. It's called having my cake and eating it too.

I would, however, very strongly resist the idea of having a foreign monarch imposed on us. You'd see me hoisting the Eureka flag before you could blink!

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's interesting that Australians etc see the colonies as having ended whereas we see them as still alive and well.

 

[Madame Royale]

fortunately we have a canny PM

Some think 'canny', while others like myself think Intentionally Deceptive to be words that seem more appropriate when referring to the Prime Minister.

It's interesting that Australians etc see the colonies as having ended whereas we see them as still alive and well.

Its not so much we see them as having eneded, rather we acknowledge the inevitability of change and the part it plays within our (Australian) society. This is nothing new The Commonwealth is still very much alive and we recognise our position within it.

You'd see me hoisting the Eureka flag before you could blink!

Ain't that the truth! And I, myself, am a monarchist.

 

[Opal]

I think Constitutional Monarchies have the best of both worlds... They have an elected head of state (Prime Minister) who's basically the same as our President and they also have the "symbolic" head of state which remains unpolitical (and therefore unbiased). I wish America had a monarchy. {political comment deleted - Elspeth}I think by passing down the monarchy from generation to generation, the heirs are raised with the idea (and importance) of serving the people. And that type of psychology is invaluable.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Too wish we were a Monarchy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Do you really mean that? I don't see a smiley. If you do mean it, you might find that the majority of those of us who support the status quo would oppose that idea.

My comment did not refer to people who currently support the monarchy with the exception of myself.

I commented on those who already oppose having a monarch as also not being receptive to that as a possible solution.

Personally I wouldn't see having the son of the present monarch as an imposition but as a way of giving us our own monarch and Head of State without really having to change anything except the name.

However it want happen at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some think 'canny', while others like myself think Intentionally Deceptive to be words that seem more appropriate when referring to the Prime Minister.

In regard to some things but not with regard to the republican question to which I was referring - in that case canny is a perfectly apt description and it was clear from the beginning of the process that a question in that form was going to be put - he was never going to put a simple question 'Do you want to be a republic?' (which can't be a referendum question anyway but only a plebiscite - the difference being that a referendum is binding upon the government and the wording of the referendum MUST be the wording to go into the constitution whereas a plebiscite is an indication to the government of the state of support of the people - i.e. a compulsory opinion poll --- I have put that explanation in in case people don't know the difference between referendum and plebiscite as it applies in the Australian political system).

 

[Madame Royale]

My inital comment stands, but I appreciate your response

As a devout monarchist (it came as little surprise really), he was ceratinly going to place a question whereas he could comfortably influence the outcome before we even reached the polls. The bi-partisan appointment model was, I think, without doubt a sham and the preamble being something which did cause (If I remember correctly) concern about the courts role and possible enforcement at judges discreation.

The preamble was actually not viewed as something significant but merely documented matter of parliamentary waffle.

Again, being a monarchist myself I am glade of the result but I am not happy with the way in which it was formed. It is my view that a question which bore no personal influence or 'catches' is what Australian's deserved and that is not what they received.

 

[Australian]

I think the British Monarchy will be around for a very long time. I'm assuming it is too firmly rooted into British society and history, right? However, for Australia, I don't think we will have the Birtish monarch as our Head of State for much longer, I think we will become a republic during the early stages of Charles reign. At least I hope, as it would be nice for when foreign heads of state visit Australia, they will toast an Australian head of state, not the Queen of England who really, in my view, does not represent an ounce of Australian culture/society. I have nothing against the Queen, i think shes a top lady, just that she doesn't fit in with the Australian society any longer IMO.

 

[Warren]

... I am glade of the result but I am not happy with the way in which it was formed. It is my view that a question which bore no personal influence or 'catches' is what Australian's deserved and that is not what they received.

The only way to put the question with any substance to referendum would have had to include the proposed complete re-write of the Constitution, and I don't think the Australian public were quite ready for that. The devil is in the detail, and changing from a Constitutional Monarchy to the r-word is a whole lot more complex at both Federal and State levels than just a "yes" response to a plebiscite, no matter how it was worded.

If the reserve powers of the Crown were to be delegated to an elected president and unelected State governors responsible to no-one, they would end up more (potentially) powerful than the Governor-General and Governors under the current arrangements. Alternatively, the possibility of the reserve powers devolving to the politicians is not a welcome prospect.

 

[Madame Royale]

and I don't think the Australian public were quite ready for that.

I dont agree, but nice to have another perspective

I believe they (the greater majority) were ready for change, rather did not agree with the model placed before them and if your not in agreeance with the proposal then it's extremely unlikely that such change would occur, as was the case.

If the reserve powers of the Crown were to be delegated to an elected president and unelected State governors responsible to no-one, they would end up more (potentially) powerful than the Governor-General and Governors under the current arrangements. Alternatively, the possibility of the reserve powers devolving to the politicians is not a welcome prospect.

This is a very interesting point you have made though.

 

[Furienna]

I would love the idea of a junior member of the BRF becoming King/Queen of Australia in their own right but I suspect that the majority of those who support a republic would even oppose that idea.

I think that would have been a good idea from the beginning when Australia became practically independent of UK in, I think, 1901. They should have made a Brittish prince king of Australia. In that way, the traditional connections with Brittain could have been preserved, and Australia would also be a totally independent country. The same, of course, goes for Canada. However, I'm sure the general governors do a great job representing their respective countries in the queen's understandable abscence.

 

[Roslyn]

I think that would have been a good idea from the beginning when Australia became practically independent of UK in, I think, 1901. They should have made a Brittish prince king of Australia.

Interesting idea, but I can't agree. The original object was to achieve unity for the Colonies and democracy and a degree of independence, not turn us into a separate monarchy.

Australian independence evolved gradually, and involved several steps. The process was complicated by the fact that the States - the former self-governing Colonies, wanted to remain as self-governing Colonies, and still are to a large extent. The Australian Government only has the "specific, enumerated heads of power" given to it in the Constitution, and such further powers as the States are prepared to yield to it. And the States don't like doing that.

But the fact is Australia does now have its own monarch. That monarch also happens to be the monarch of the United Kingdom. We share the same monarch, but they are separate and distinct roles.

When her Majesty is here, she is our Queen: Queen of Australia . When she's not here, she's represented by the Governor-General, or, in the case of the States, the State Governor. She doesn't have much of a role under our Constitution/s, but she is still our Queen.

We didn't always have our own monarch. At the time The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (an Act of British Parliament) came into force we were still part of the British Empire and the British monarch was our monarch because we were a part of the United Kingdom. But in 1927 we ceased to be part of the United Kingdom and became an independent country within the British Commonwealth, and that's when we got our own monarch.

It wasn't until 1986 that legislation was finally enacted that stopped appeals to the Privy Council, and removed the power for the UK parliament to make laws for Australia or the States, even at their request.

It has only recently (1999) been decided by our High Court that the UK is a "foreign power" within the meaning of our Constitution.

But Queen Elizabeth is still our Queen.

 

[Furienna]

Hmmm... But Norway chose a monarchy to show their independence, not a republic. It might not have been much of a referendum, since so few people were allowed to vote in 1905, but Haakon VII was nevertheless voted into his office. I think Australia could have done the same thing to show their independence.

 

[Akilah]

I see the monarchy being obsolete in 50-100 years.

 

[Roslyn]

Hmmm... But Norway chose a monarchy to show their independence, not a republic. It might not have been much of a referendum, since so few people were allowed to vote in 1905, but Haakon VII was nevertheless voted into his office. I think Australia could have done the same thing to show their independence.

Interesting. I suppose it could have gone that way, but I've never read of that option being considered.

I'm afraid I know very little about Norway's history, but from a quick look at Wikipedia it seems that the circumstances were somewhat different. If we were going to get our own monarch, we'd probably have wanted a local, not an import. We are a very, very, very long way away from England.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I see the monarchy being obsolete in 50-100 years.

Any reason?

 

[Von Schlesian]

Sounds like a no BeatrixFan!

The Constitutional Monarchy in Australia is a model with a stable, uncontested, non-political yet controllable (by the parliament or courts) sovereign. As stated before, we in effect, have the best of both worlds with the dignity, grace and symbol for pride we have in the person of Her Majesty, but also the fully accountable, bicameral, elected parliament headed by a prime minister.

Monarchies entrench integrity also (even though we have been especially lucky with the sense of duty Her Majesty, and most other monarchs, take their role), by being incorruptible - with what would you tempt or bribe a monarch. With money? Praise? Social standing? Well - they have plenty of that already. Can the same be said of presidents of republics?

 

[Ygraine]

Monarchy is an anachronistic concept that has very little time left.They are only human beings that are not capable of any more than anybody else they are not different we all share the same flesh and blood we need to concentrate on sorting out the mess we have made of the planet instead of putting a small group of people on pedastals because they pretend to be something "special"

 

[Avareenah]

Monarchy is an anachronistic concept that has very little time left.They are only human beings that are not capable of any more than anybody else they are not different we all share the same flesh and blood we need to concentrate on sorting out the mess we have made of the planet instead of putting a small group of people on pedastals because they pretend to be something "special"

And elected presidents are more capable than anybody else and are not of the same flesh and blood as us? Perhaps the names Nixon and Clinton may ring a bell...?

 

[lord_rankin]

In all of the turmoil that has engulfed the Middle East we should stop to realize that the most stable and politically sound countries in the arab world are the states that have a monarchy. I do not believe that the system of monarchy archane or out of touch with today. On the contrary I believe it to be something that is vastly overlooked as a possible solution to the failed states where democracy has all but failed.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I think it may be more true to say that the most stable and politically sound (and prosperous) countries include a disproportionate number of constitutional monarchies. Some of the unstable states in the Middle East are absolute monarchies, and I don't think they're particularly admirable role models.

 

[Royalist0007]

The monarchy is an extremely important part of the New Zealand identity.As I am both a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys & a member of the Monarchist League of New Zealand,I am totally opposed to the idea of cutting off the monarchy,as the risk of civil war is too great.Look at Zimbabwe to see republicanism in action.

Being of British descent,I also regard republicanism with the suspicion it deserves,because of its association with Sinn Fein/I.R.A. terrorism.

New Zealand will always be a part of the British Commonwealth family of countries.Eventually,Ireland & Zimbabwe will return to the British Commonwealth,& Somaliland will finally get its independence recognised & admitted as a full British Commonwealth member state.

Aidan.

 

[Roxsteve]

I see the monarchy being obsolete in 50-100 years.

I say sooner than that!!

 

[Royal Fan]

Obsolete nah!!!!! They Survived Cromwell Lets hope they dont make that mistake again lol

 

[Warren]

Since this thread is for discussion of the British Monarchy, posts discussing the former Grand Duchy of Finland have been removed.

thanks.