Elizabeth II

Seems to have been decided that the day of the funeral will be a public holiday after all, rather than just "national day of mourning".
 
exchemist said:
Actually, when I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I feel more and more convinced that a system separating the role of head of state from that of head of government is a good thing. The monarch is an alternative source of (soft) power, being, psychologically, the focus of national unity and personal loyalty for the country (including the armed forces). This prevents all power being concentrated in one person. Because the monarch sits above party politics, he or she can unify the country in spite of the coming and going of the various political factions and heads of government, many of whom come to be despised by a large proportion of the citizens.

The monarch effectively prevents the head of government from getting too big for his or her boots, by acting as a reminder to the people of the limitations of the office of prime minister. There are quite a few monarchies in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium). Quite a few republics have chosen to split the head of state from head of government, too, e.g. Ireland, Germany, Italy, Israel. In Spain, the monarch even stopped a military coup, single-handed!

Don't knock it too much, when your own system is falling apart due to the overweening power of the president.;)
Click to expand...
thats just the kingdoms there are 3 principalities( Lichtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra which the french president is one of the monarchs for because reasons) 1 grand duchy in Luxembourg, and technically the pope is a monarch over the vatican.
 
pjdude1219 said:
thats just the kingdoms there are 3 principalities( Lichtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra which the french president is one of the monarchs for because reasons) 1 grand duchy in Luxembourg, and technically the pope is a monarch over the vatican.
Click to expand...
Sure. Not actual monarchs, though. Princes, really, as one had in large parts of Europe before the nation state became fashionable.
 
exchemist said:
Sure. Not actual monarchs, though. Princes, really, as one had in large parts of Europe before the nation state became fashionable.
Click to expand...
sure they are. just because the title isnt king/queen or emperor/empress doesn't make them not a monarch. the definition of monarch is a head of state who rules for life or until abdication. which is the case for all of these except princess of andorra whose succession is ex officio requiring you either to be president of france or the bishop of urgell.
 
pjdude1219 said:
princess alexandra is currently unmarried so you got a chance though she is sixth in line
Click to expand...
She's 85, I might pass but maybe that's a good thing if I would inherit it. Let me get back to you on that one.

All that inbreeding might not make for the brightest of people but they sure do seem to live a long time. Hum, she might live another 15 years. I'll pass.
 
exchemist said:
Actually, when I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I feel more and more convinced that a system separating the role of head of state from that of head of government is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree. It might depend on what you mean by the "head of government", though. I'm in favour of Australia becoming a republic, provided somebody suggests a good model for how it will work. We could substitute a head of state who is hands-off when it comes to actually exerting executive power, which is effectively the current situation in Australia with the King (!) as head of state. It's not necessary to go down the American path if you want a republic. Experience has shown that - probably - the US Constitution vests too much power in the President.

In contrast, the King's powers as head of state of Australia (and, indeed, Great Britain), are very limited and largely ceremonial. Even in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, when the government was sacked, the Queen played a hands-off role. On the other hand, her representative in Australia, the Governor General, was found to have some "reserve powers" by proxy that turned out to be quite significant, to say the least. The GG is not in the business of making "executive orders" like the US President can; nor does he or she have any power to veto legislation or grant pardons to criminals.

The Australian parliamentary system followed, in many ways, the British one, although the Australian Constitution gets direct inspiration in some areas by the US one, especially in the area of allocating powers to the state and federal governments.
 
James R said:
I'm inclined to agree. It might depend on what you mean by the "head of government", though. I'm in favour of Australia becoming a republic, provided somebody suggests a good model for how it will work. We could substitute a head of state who is hands-off when it comes to actually exerting executive power, which is effectively the current situation in Australia with the King (!) as head of state. It's not necessary to go down the American path if you want a republic. Experience has shown that - probably - the US Constitution vests too much power in the President.

In contrast, the King's powers as head of state of Australia (and, indeed, Great Britain), are very limited and largely ceremonial. Even in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, when the government was sacked, the Queen played a hands-off role. On the other hand, her representative in Australia, the Governor General, was found to have some "reserve powers" by proxy that turned out to be quite significant, to say the least. The GG is not in the business of making "executive orders" like the US President can; nor does he or she have any power to veto legislation or grant pardons to criminals.

The Australian parliamentary system followed, in many ways, the British one, although the Australian Constitution gets direct inspiration in some areas by the US one, especially in the area of allocating powers to the state and federal governments.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Australia could follow the model of post-war Germany, Ireland, Italy and Israel, which separate the roles. It is interesting that these republics, with c.20th constitutions, all chose to do this, in contrast to those like the US and France that were set up in the c.18th when monarchies were the norm.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Indeed. Australia could follow the model of post-war Germany, Ireland, Italy and Israel, which separate the roles. It is interesting that these republics, with c.20th constitutions, all chose to do this, in contrast to those like the US and France that were set up in the c.18th when monarchies were the norm.
Click to expand...
Is Italy really the best role model? :)
 
James R said:
Experience has shown that - probably - the US Constitution vests too much power in the President.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that for years, the Presidency was considered to be weak and that the real power was the power of the "Bully Pulpit". That was Teddy Roosevelt's term I think, mean the main power of the President was his persuasive ability.

Gradually Presidents took more power and it was generally seen as a good thing when contrasted to a "do nothing" Congress. That is until is wasn't such a good thing.:)

Now most Presidents have abused some of those powers and then along comes Trump who does even have a general respect for the institutions and now most everyone sees that things have gone too far in terms of Presidential powers.

I'm not sure if this particular problem is with the Constitution though although there are plenty of areas that need "updating". The current problem is more one of power being "taken" and courts upholding that.
 
Michael 345 said:
I thought the crises was that the GG acted alone with out consulting the Queen
Click to expand...
The GG (John Kerr) did contact the Queen. From memory, I think that her response was essentially that it was a matter for Australia, not for her. Kerr also consulted High Court judge Lionel Murphy to ask whether he had the power to dismiss the government. Kerr was in cohoots with senior Liberal party members, IIRC. Fraser, who went on to become PM, knew in advanced of the plan to sack the Whitlam government and, again IIRC, encouraged Kerr.
 
Seattle said:
Is Italy really the best role model? :)
Click to expand...
Did I say it was? There are other elements to a constitution as well, you know. Why do you ignore Germany and Ireland?

For many years we all thought the US model, with its separation of powers into three, was the ideal. But Trump has tested that proposition to destruction. We now see the judiciary is not independent of the executive, while the legislature has fallen victim to a cult of personality of the head of state, or former head of state. And since the head of the executive is the same as the head of state, all 3 branches were, and could be again, in the grip of one man. It has become clear the US president has too much power.
 
Seattle said:
She's 85, I might pass but maybe that's a good thing if I would inherit it. Let me get back to you on that one.

All that inbreeding might not make for the brightest of people but they sure do seem to live a long time. Hum, she might live another 15 years. I'll pass.
Click to expand...
princess Alexandra of the grand duchy of Luxembourg is only 31
 
Sarkus said:
using correct language... that's easy.
Click to expand...
Chiselling "Queen's Bench off the front of the courthouses and replacing it with "King's Bench" is easy? Not to mention all of the forms and documents that will have to be changed. (When our provincial government changed the name of one of it's agencies forty-some years ago, tons of letterheads had to be thrown out.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top