Monarchy

[Kieran McConville]

Yes, the system as set up in Canada and Australia are highly comparable.

I'm not sure in what way Anitram is wrong, unless it's a matter of semantics. A monarch who 'reigns but does not rule', is, very much, a symbol. That is what the Crown (and its representatives) are: a symbol.

The Governor-General likewise reigns but does not rule. Bills of Parliament go to him or her, but - and this is the key point - long precedent and convention make it almost inconceivable that any bill would be rejected.

In theory the Queen or her representatives could refuse government bills and put an end to any government's life fairly quickly. But convention and precedent have a huge impact on what actually occurs in reality. There's theoretical power, and then there's real existing power. And these days parliaments (but really the executive) hold all the chips.

One doesn't need to be a constitutional expert to debate these broad concepts. This is basic civics that any Commonwealth citizen ought to be taught in school.

[yolland]

Originally posted by Slipstream
If you remove the position of President of the USA, could the US exist? It couldn't.

Sure it could. The Constitution specifically provides for the possibility of a new Constitutional Convention, and prescribes how it would come about (two-thirds of the individual state assemblies submit petitions specifying a common purpose for the proposed Convention). While I can't see it happening, as there's effectively no popular will for it, in principle there's no reason why we couldn't go that route to, e.g., overhaul the Constitution to provide for a parliamentary system rather than a presidential one. It wouldn't mean the country would cease to exist.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Kieran McConville

I'm not sure in what way Anitram is wrong, unless it's a matter of semantics. A monarch who 'reigns but does not rule', is, very much, a symbol. That is what the Crown (and its representatives) are: a symbol.

Yes, precisely my point.

BTW, Kieran, do you know much about Australian criminal law? Your jurisdictions are driving me absolutely bonkers with their code/common law splits. And you have a federal criminal code (Commonwealth), correct? Does that cover only laws under federal jurisdiction (as in the US) or is it a model penal code? So frustrating! Sorry to detract from the topic at hand.

[Kieran McConville]

Anitram, I know very little about Australian criminal law (not in detail, see this IS the area where one defers to experts).

I was of the impression that each state had a criminal code, and it may be that this coexists with a federal code (the higher overriding the former if there were a case of conflict, the lower prevailing if the higher takes no position).

Honestly, I don't know, although I should.

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

Originally posted by melon
Pretty much all of Northern Europe is some combination of mostly Germanic, mixed in with earlier Celtic ancestry, so it shouldn't really be surprising that their royal families are that way too.

It might be some surprise to people in that "English" is pretty much entirely Germanic in origin, all the way from the early migrations of Germanic Anglo-Saxons to the French-cultured Normans (e.g., "Norsemen," also of Germanic stock). In fact, had the Normans not been whores for all things "French," modern England would probably have much in common culturally with Scandinavia today, not just from an ancestral POV.

The only original true Britons were the druids and the 'Stonehenge' type people. The invasions of the Romans, French, Norsemen and Germanic tribes have changed the bloodline and the language.

As for monarchies, in general, I find them interesting to study, historically, but I don't see too much use for them today. But I guess their value for each country with an old monarchy to decide for themselves.

Over time, Britain has been ruled by Britons, French and Germans, depending on which family/dynasty was in power. There have been many over the centuries. The current monarchy line dates to Queen Victoria and was originally called "Saxe Coborg -Gotha", but was changed to "Windsor" during WWI when all German names- apparently even your own- fell out of fashion when sauerkraut became 'liberty cabbage.' Technically, the changeover dates to the early 1700's when, due to the death of Queen Anne(last of the British-Scottish Stuart line)* with no surviving children (she'd had 11) the next in line for the throne was a cousin, George I from the House of Hanover which was in Germany. It died out again in the 1830's, and went to another German cousin, Victoria. Because the royal families always intermarried to keep the marriages 'equal', they are all mixed anyway.

As much as American hillbillies get joked on for being 'inbreeders' there are no bigger inbreeders than the British royal family of the past. Queen Victoria had nine children, and encouraged her grandchildren to marry amongst each other. Many, many married first cousins, later second. Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson were the first 'new blood' in the family in hundreds of years.

*footnote: there were more Stuart cousins who could have been chosen after Anne's death, but because they were Catholics, they were not accepted by the British Government or Church of England and they went for the nearest Protestant. The Catholic Stuart line later attempted twice to take back the throne by force but were thwarted. (see "Bonnie Prince Charlie")

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by anitram


Yes, precisely my point.

BTW, Kieran, do you know much about Australian criminal law? Your jurisdictions are driving me absolutely bonkers with their code/common law splits. And you have a federal criminal code (Commonwealth), correct? Does that cover only laws under federal jurisdiction (as in the US) or is it a model penal code? So frustrating! Sorry to detract from the topic at hand.

It's dumb, huh!
Our problems began with federation, but history aside, it stands that QLD, NT, WA and I think TAS enacted their own codes based on Sir Samuel Griffith's draft back in 1890, but the rest of us are based on common law, so it's all previous case decisions and statutes. In 1995 we tried to implement the Commonwealth criminal code so we'd all be under the one criminal law system but it never really took and the states still stick to their own. Thankfully, all jurisdictions work on very similar categories so some argue that our system ain't broke... I digress.

Want me to dig out some detailed explanations for you?

[1stepcloser]

i think monarchy is pretty much irrelevant in this day and age and it annoys me how much time certain newspapers in the uk devote to the royal family and how many pints harry drank at a jolly good social evening with the rest of his upper class twit friends and hangers-on.

the monarchy is a fascinating part of the history of england places like the tower of london should be preserved and held in high esteem because of all of the events that it has witnessed over the last 1000 years. however since the enlightenment of the 18th century, i don't think there has been much point in having monarch if their influence on politics is minimal at best.

[LJT]

Originally posted by AnnRKeyintheUSA


The only original true Britons were the druids and the 'Stonehenge' type people. The invasions of the Romans, French, Norsemen and Germanic tribes have changed the bloodline and the language.

Actually the majority of people in the British isles are still generally descendants of a pre-celtic people....the invasions of the Romans, Saxons and Normans just changed the bloodlines of the ruling class and the general culture, but not really the genetic makeup of the whole populations.

[Salome]

Originally posted by DrTeeth
I don't think you can speak of a true democracy when you can't elect the head of state, even though it has its benefits. The fact that someone's position in a government is determined by the family he or she's born in, is not something to be proud of.

if we'd let the Dutch population vote their king/queen we'd probably have King Marco Borsato 1 right now

which would be even worse


as long as the role of the monarchy stays as what it is now I like it