4 ms·

Australia voted against the chance to replace its constitutional monarchy because of ambiguities and uncertainties about these questions. People know what they

by mehwoot 10y ago

Australia voted against the chance to replace its constitutional monarchy because of ambiguities and uncertainties about these questions. People know what they are getting with the existing systems and the constitutional monarchs have no real power. If you're changing that you have to be very careful.

twblalock 10y ago
Judging by the results of the last election, the Queen is probably more popular in Australia than any of the party leaders. But I suspect that Australia, and many other commonwealth countries, will vote to become republics after Prince Charles becomes king.
- celticninja 10y ago
  What if he skips it and William is crowned instead?
  - daemin 10y ago
    That would only occur if Prince Charles was dead.
    - sverige 10y ago
      Not true. He divorced and remarried which makes him ineligible for the crown.
      - daemin 10y ago
        I thought Henry VIII did a thing to make divorce permissible for kings and prices? Is there an official place where the succession is listed and laws detailed?
        Maultasche 10y ago
        Henry VIII was primarily concerned about himself and producing an heir. He did what he did solely to remove the obstacles that he faced to achieve this goal. All his actions dealt with his marriages on a case-by-case basis, and did not establish some sort of divorce legal precedent. His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question. When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders. Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife. His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard. The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died. So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
      - andrewla 10y ago
        This is specifically untrue in regards to parallels to Edward VIII; there the issue was that Wallis Simpson was divorced with ex-husbands still living, which at the time, the Church of England did not allow. Charles remarried long after Diana had died, and so is not subject to this restriction. I'm not intimately familiar with British law, and there may be other reasons why his divorce would make him ineligible, but it would not be for the same reasons that Edward was considered controversial. Also, as regards Henry VIII and divorce, apparently he used the power of the newly created Church of England to annul his marriages, rather than actually get divorced.
      - DomBlack 10y ago
        Source? I'm interested into reading why - given Henry VIII.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Political figures with little real power are almost always more popular than those who do wield real power. Even the same person can see a big difference depending on the popular perception of their power--see Hillary Clinton's favorability rating after she resigned as Secretary of State vs. now when she is running for President. If Charles, as king, tries to stick his nose in things, he will be unpopular. But if he remains a distant figurehead, I bet he will still be more popular than the elected politicians in Australia.
moogly 10y ago
Maybe I am cynical but are you sure they didn't vote against it because they like "traditions", pretty parades and hand-waving and think princes and princesses are quaint and fun and secretly in their hearts they wish they could be one? I do live in a 1000-year-old constitutional monarchy after all and that's the pro arguments I tend to hear. "Good for tourism" is another one.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > "Good for tourism" is another one. Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    Maybe Australia should add a hereditary upper house, then. Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.
    - neximo64 10y ago
      You do know the upper house in the UK is made not only of Hereditary peers but professionals or experts in their respective fields. They are of course nominated and appointed instead of being elected - but that sounds silly to have actual professionals & scientists in the decision making process of making laws.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Traditions and pretty parades make for exceptional soft power opportunities, something the UK punches far above its weight in. Getting a visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was probably the one force that could outshine a visit from President Obama. Getting a state visit from the Queen is part of major diplomatic wrangling, she doesn't just pick a country and go "that seems like a nice place to visit". Edward VII played a large role in setting the conditions for the Entente Cordial, in large part by partying a lot in France - activities a politician could never get away with even today. That cultural and ambassadorial role set the scene for the end to a 1000 years of Anglo-French conflict. More recently the current Queen has played major roles in healing the divisions of conflict, most recently with her trip to the Republic of Ireland. Elderly politicians are still divisive in their election, regardless of whether they're elected by the public or some body. Their actions have to be viewed through the prism of political cynicism and the potential for advancing the interests of their party. Whereas a 90 year old woman who still carries out a punishing schedule of public duties presents a far more inspiring example of duty and loyalty. If no-one voted for you then you are beholden to no-one.

by mehwoot 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago

Judging by the results of the last election, the Queen is probably more popular in Australia than any of the party leaders. But I suspect that Australia, and many other commonwealth countries, will vote to become republics after Prince Charles becomes king.

celticninja 10y ago
What if he skips it and William is crowned instead?
- daemin 10y ago
  That would only occur if Prince Charles was dead.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Not true. He divorced and remarried which makes him ineligible for the crown.
    - daemin 10y ago
      I thought Henry VIII did a thing to make divorce permissible for kings and prices? Is there an official place where the succession is listed and laws detailed?
      - Maultasche 10y ago
        Henry VIII was primarily concerned about himself and producing an heir. He did what he did solely to remove the obstacles that he faced to achieve this goal. All his actions dealt with his marriages on a case-by-case basis, and did not establish some sort of divorce legal precedent. His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question. When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders. Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife. His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard. The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died. So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
    - andrewla 10y ago
      This is specifically untrue in regards to parallels to Edward VIII; there the issue was that Wallis Simpson was divorced with ex-husbands still living, which at the time, the Church of England did not allow. Charles remarried long after Diana had died, and so is not subject to this restriction. I'm not intimately familiar with British law, and there may be other reasons why his divorce would make him ineligible, but it would not be for the same reasons that Edward was considered controversial. Also, as regards Henry VIII and divorce, apparently he used the power of the newly created Church of England to annul his marriages, rather than actually get divorced.
    - DomBlack 10y ago
      Source? I'm interested into reading why - given Henry VIII.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Political figures with little real power are almost always more popular than those who do wield real power. Even the same person can see a big difference depending on the popular perception of their power--see Hillary Clinton's favorability rating after she resigned as Secretary of State vs. now when she is running for President. If Charles, as king, tries to stick his nose in things, he will be unpopular. But if he remains a distant figurehead, I bet he will still be more popular than the elected politicians in Australia.

moogly 10y ago

Maybe I am cynical but are you sure they didn't vote against it because they like "traditions", pretty parades and hand-waving and think princes and princesses are quaint and fun and secretly in their hearts they wish they could be one? I do live in a 1000-year-old constitutional monarchy after all and that's the pro arguments I tend to hear. "Good for tourism" is another one.

twblalock 10y ago
> "Good for tourism" is another one. Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.
- zeveb 10y ago
  Maybe Australia should add a hereditary upper house, then. Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    You do know the upper house in the UK is made not only of Hereditary peers but professionals or experts in their respective fields. They are of course nominated and appointed instead of being elected - but that sounds silly to have actual professionals & scientists in the decision making process of making laws.
cmdkeen 10y ago
Traditions and pretty parades make for exceptional soft power opportunities, something the UK punches far above its weight in. Getting a visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was probably the one force that could outshine a visit from President Obama. Getting a state visit from the Queen is part of major diplomatic wrangling, she doesn't just pick a country and go "that seems like a nice place to visit". Edward VII played a large role in setting the conditions for the Entente Cordial, in large part by partying a lot in France - activities a politician could never get away with even today. That cultural and ambassadorial role set the scene for the end to a 1000 years of Anglo-French conflict. More recently the current Queen has played major roles in healing the divisions of conflict, most recently with her trip to the Republic of Ireland. Elderly politicians are still divisive in their election, regardless of whether they're elected by the public or some body. Their actions have to be viewed through the prism of political cynicism and the potential for advancing the interests of their party. Whereas a 90 year old woman who still carries out a punishing schedule of public duties presents a far more inspiring example of duty and loyalty. If no-one voted for you then you are beholden to no-one.