Support for the monarchy - heading for extinction?

[femme fatale]

*Waits for someone to hurl the moronic "Orstraia, love it or leave it" adage at Drifter.*

Speaking of those who angrily shout such cliches from the stodgy comfort of their RSL barstools at every criticism or suggestion of change, here's something else for them to get into a lather about: Charles, that person who believes in woo, thinks he has something of value to offer politically by virtue of the fact that he was borne of 'royalty', and intends to assert his monarchic pressure on state issues when he becomes 'king', assuming a presidential role, to boot.

This guy is a pompous ass and the monarchy an obscene drain of taxpayer's money in a country where its most vocal supporters are the same people who call single parents a scrounging drain on the public purse and want to force them into the workforce.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-charles-as-president-not-in-my-name-1026170.html

In an increasingly enlightened and savvy society, Charles will do for the monarchy what fundamentalism is doing for institutionalised religion - by sheer virtue of gormless audacity he clearly demonstrates the ludicrousness of it.

I just wonder whether it will ever be possible to dismantle a monarchy in a peaceful and democratic fashion...I wonder if someone like William might ever cooperate with parliament in doing so...is there an avenue in place, or will it take new legislation...what would it mean for the CofE...oh, the implications! :boonie:

[BiggyRat]

Definately heading for extinction for mine. In fact, when we voted against the republic however many years ago it was now, I reckon (assuming/guessing) that the vote wasn't against the Republic, but was more voting for Lizzie, by most if not all of the 60+'s who've grown up with the idea of a monachy all their lives, like Liz, and voted to keep her. :|

[custos]

This guy is a pompous ass

Yes, absolutely.


and the monarchy an obscene drain of taxpayer's money

No, I don't think so. The tourism value of the Royal family is enormous and almost certainly outweighs the cost of running the royals.

From an Australian perspective though the royal family is dopey and we've clearly outgrown them. It's just a matter of time.

[femme fatale]

No, I don't think so. The tourism value of the Royal family is enormous and almost certainly outweighs the cost of running the royals.
How many tourists actually get to see the royal fam? They see buildings and the changing of the guard, and that place where people's heads rolled, etc, but do they get to see the crusty old dear in the dated frock? Pffft! The monarchy doesn't sustain tourism, tourism sustains the monarchy.


And if it does deign to meet the plebs they practically cream themselves over it. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[Randy]

Do i think monachism is loosing its suporters base? no.

The same issues confront us now that made us vote against becoming a republic. Our governemnt is built around the monachy. Removing it is a huge job. It requires a change in government managment. Do we adopt the US/French presidential system? If so, in the case where the upper and lower house refuse to play ball, who resolves the issues? Who has the authority to desolve the parliment? who has the authority to over-rule the prime minister? Do we delegate this duty to the autocracy? giving the senate, a 1/2 chance of being avid incombant governemnt supporters regardless of their personal opinion, the reserve powers now held by the queen?

A managed democracy has enabled us to avoid the pitfalls of the american presidential system. Sure a republic is nice. A benevelant ruler who only steps in for the good in utopian, but presents as a threat as they are just as capable to do bad as to do good.

As for charls excercising authority. The monarchies authority is ceramonial. Charls can't execute 'executive authority'. In such a case, commonwealth naitons would simply sever his perview, as commonwealth naitons grant the monatchy authority, the monarchy doesn't exert in on its subject nations.

[montyb8]

In fact, when we voted against the republic however many years ago it was now, I reckon (assuming/guessing) that the vote wasn't against the Republic, but was more voting for Lizzie,

I disagree, I believe people voted against the model proposed (ie, head of state decided by parliament) rather than a vote against republicism itself.

[freddyfartbox]

How is a Monarchy, which is basically a Dictatorship/Totalitarian form of rule, relevant to a Democratic society? I can never figure that one out.

[Randy]

How is a Monarchy, which is basically a Dictatorship/Totalitarian form of rule, relevant to a Democratic society? I can never figure that one out.A monarchy is not the same as a dictatorship. A monarch/emperor rules because the people allow them to. A dictator rules because its subjects must comply.

We can, at any time sever our connection to the monarchy. Its what makes the difference. Saying that monarchy = dictatorship is like comparing working for an employer with slavery. Sure in both cases you must do what your employer says, and it is a form of servitude. But you can quit your job at any time.

[freddyfartbox]

It's still irrelevant though.:)

[Lizard Drinkin]

I disagree, I believe people voted against the model proposed (ie, head of state decided by parliament) rather than a vote against republicism itself.
Yep. Carefully designed by avowed monarchist John Howard to fail along these particular lines. Even putting the "With trust in God" line in the preamble to completely divide republican supporters.

[custos]

How many tourists actually get to see the royal fam? They see buildings and the changing of the guard, and that place where people's heads rolled, etc, but do they get to see the crusty old dear in the dated frock?

It’s not just about seeing the Royals, it's all the stuff that goes along with them. Think about the merchandising. Think about how many copies of Woman's Weekly were sold because of Lady Di on the front... Dislike the Royal Family all you want (and I couldn't care less frankly) but I do think the economics of having the Royals stacks up okay. I didn't feel like spending much time on finding figures but in The Mayor's Plan for Tourism in London (http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/pdf/Visit_London_the_Mayor%27s_Plan_for_Tourism_in_Lon don.pdf) I note:


In 2000, London attracted 13 million overseas visitors, staying for 82 million nights and spending nearly £7 billion (almost twice the value of domestic tourism)

By comparison the Royal Family costs the British taxpayer around £40 million per year (or 0.6% of the total London tourism spend). Is it reasonable to think that the Royal Family contributes more than 0.6% of the attracting power for London tourism? I think so. Admittedly, tourists would still come to see Buckingham Palace if there was no Royal Family but it's still not a hard argument to make that they pay their way.


Yep. Carefully designed by avowed monarchist John Howard to fail along these particular lines. Even putting the "With trust in God" line in the preamble to completely divide republican supporters.

True enough. Canny politician as always. Having said that, the republican movement also self-destructed by their seemingly irreconcilable division over the election or appointment of a Head of State. The hope that the public would agree to a republic and be prepared to have the details worked out later was naive.

[Drifter]

True enough. Canny politician as always. Having said that, the republican movement also self-destructed by their seemingly irreconcilable division over the election or appointment of a Head of State. The hope that the public would agree to a republic and be prepared to have the details worked out later was naive.

Rudd has promised to deliver Australia a Republic by 2010. If we dump the Monarchy, I presume therefore we also dump the Church of England represented by the Monarchy.. but Rudd is a Christian... will his Republic truly be a secular one?

[Lizard Drinkin]

True enough. Canny politician as always. Having said that, the republican movement also self-destructed by their seemingly irreconcilable division over the election or appointment of a Head of State. The hope that the public would agree to a republic and be prepared to have the details worked out later was naive.
Not that they were given that opportunity. The first step is to simply vote on becoming a Republic. Rolling the model of republic into the vote was what killed it, as naturally that debate is a whole different ballgame.

[Lizard Drinkin]

Rudd has promised to deliver Australia a Republic by 2010. If we dump the Monarchy, I presume therefore we also dump the Church of England represented by the Monarchy.. but Rudd is a Christian... will his Republic truly be a secular one?
Silly presumption and hardly worth raising. There is no official state religion in our current system anyway - our Head of State just happens to be the primate of a church. :rolleyes:

[Drifter]

Silly presumption and hardly worth raising. There is no official state religion in our current system anyway - our Head of State just happens to be the primate of a church. :rolleyes:

If the Monarch is also Church representative, Australia's subservience to the monarchy makes it de facto subservient to the Church the Monarchy represents. Sorry.. I don't think it's a silly presumption at all. :| On a purely symbolic level, Australia is answerable to the Monarch - a figure of religious signifance (traditions of divine right). Of no consequence in the real world yes, but purely on a symbolic level... I'm not so sure...

EDIT: Rudd once publicly thanked the nation for its prayers regarding our troops in Afghanistan. Apparently our troops following the Americans are not in our Prime Minister's hands, but in God's hands. Rudd is elevating his Christian belief to political levels (about the Henson case he said that children should be protected for "God's sake") and I find that worrisome... sorry if you don't.

EDIT 2: Please point out in the Australian Constitution exactly where it separates Church and State: in a Republic, this will presumably be re-worded (???)... my only question is how. Forgive me if I don't think the future separation of Church and State in an Australian Republic in as dismissive terms as you seem to.

[Randy]

If the Monarch is also Church representative, Australia's subservience to the monarchy makes it de facto subservient to the Church the Monarchy represents. Sorry.. I don't think it's a silly presumption at all. :| On a purely symbolic level, Australia is answerable to the Monarch - a figure of religious signifance (traditions of divine right). Of no consequence in the real world yes, but purely on a symbolic level... I'm not so sure...

EDIT: Rudd once publicly thanked the nation for its prayers regarding our troops in Afghanistan. Apparently our troops following the Americans are not in our Prime Minister's hands, but in God's hands. Rudd is elevating his Christian belief to political levels (about the Henson case he said that children should be protected for "God's sake") and I find that worrisome... sorry if you don't.

EDIT 2: Please point out in the Australian Constitution exactly where it separates Church and State: in a Republic, this will presumably be re-worded (???)... my only question is how. Forgive me if I don't think the future separation of Church and State in an Australian Republic in as dismissive terms as you seem to.Why would the constitution have to indicate a separation of church and state? Our constitution doesn't contain anything of the sorts. Its merely a deceleration of basic government functions.

You imply no separation of church and state because there is no law forbidding it. There are no constitutional laws ensuring your political freedoms, but you have them.

Countries that have to outline intrinsic values generally have to do so for a reason. We have no such reason. The church has no significant political influence over government direction other than values instilled in elected representatives. Such representatives are elected for their presence of such values. Since the church has no baring on the state, there is no reason to indicate a constitutional separation.

You've got this idea that Australia is religiously driven. Somewhat drawn from a total hatred of organised religion. But you happen to live in one of the most atheistic countries on the face of the planet. IMO, the religious influences you see driving government direction are the lingering traditions of previous generations. Removing them for some existentialist ideal is not really a goal we should be aiming for. Forced religion or forced existentialism, either way its a form of opression.

[montyb8]

Rudd has promised to deliver Australia a Republic by 2010. If we dump the Monarchy, I presume therefore we also dump the Church of England represented by the Monarchy.. but Rudd is a Christian... will his Republic truly be a secular one?

You'll find that the name "Church of England" no longer exists in Australia. It was change to the "Anglican Church" some 30 years ago. In any case, the Anglican Church is automomus from the crown. Yes the Queen is the Primate of the church, but she has no real involvement. The archbishop of Canterbury is the highest position within the church. The Queen has no more involvement in the church as she does in the Australian political system. In fact, the Queen has no direct power in Australia. That power rests with the Govenor General.

[Randy]

The Queen has no more involvement in the church as she does in the Australian political system. In fact, the Queen has no direct power in Australia. That power rests with the Govenor General.The power in the australian federal political system rests with the queen (as ceremonial as that role is). The ability to halt writs and/or return them for re-evaluation is delegated to the governor general for managerial reasons. The power however rests with the queen. In the theoretical scenario where the queen opposed legislation about to be implemented, she could implement her influence through the governor general, and the governor general would be forced by legislation and his oath of allegiance to follow her directions.

Its like saying your store manager has the power in your company. He may have executive duties, but those duties are outlined by policy and his superiors. For all intents and purposes, he executes no authority of his own, he is merely a middle man.

EDIT1: The constitution clearly indicates that the governor general is a merely middle man for the queen



2 Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
But as is her nature, she doesn't exercise her authority.

EDIT2: Another quote for dramatic effect

61 Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen
and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

[Lizard Drinkin]

Why would the constitution have to indicate a separation of church and state? Our constitution doesn't contain anything of the sorts. Its merely a deceleration of basic government functions.

You imply no separation of church and state because there is no law forbidding it. There are no constitutional laws ensuring your political freedoms, but you have them.

Countries that have to outline intrinsic values generally have to do so for a reason. We have no such reason. The church has no significant political influence over government direction other than values instilled in elected representatives. Such representatives are elected for their presence of such values. Since the church has no baring on the state, there is no reason to indicate a constitutional separation.

You've got this idea that Australia is religiously driven. Somewhat drawn from a total hatred of organised religion. But you happen to live in one of the most atheistic countries on the face of the planet. IMO, the religious influences you see driving government direction are the lingering traditions of previous generations. Removing them for some existentialist ideal is not really a goal we should be aiming for. Forced religion or forced existentialism, either way its a form of opression.
Very well put Randi

[Drifter]

You imply no separation of church and state because there is no law forbidding it. There are no constitutional laws ensuring your political freedoms, but you have them.

In a censorial country such as Australia, the freedom to see, hear and speak whatever I choose (which is an innate human political right according to the UN) does not exist. With a system of censorship such as this country has, we do not even have a constitutional guarantee of free speech (we only have an implied guarantee) - where is this political freedom you claim is ensured?


Countries that have to outline intrinsic values generally have to do so for a reason. We have no such reason. The church has no significant political influence over government direction other than values instilled in elected representatives. Such representatives are elected for their presence of such values. Since the church has no baring on the state, there is no reason to indicate a constitutional separation.

Government introduces Catholic abortion councellors. Government introduces a "school chaplaincy" program. The Church has no bearing on State? Prime Minister John Howard meets with the Exclusive Bretheren; Hillsong Church gets government funding for an aboriginal arts program (which they misappropriate). Charities are tax-free only if Church-affiliated. The Rudd government endores that paedophile ring called Catholicism by making a religious event - World Youth Day - and Aussie celebration.

The Church has no bearing on State, you say. :confused::rolleyes: