Australia: Senator Lidia Thorpe escorted out of the Great Hall after disturbance at the end of King Charles's speech.

[danieldemol]

She looks awfully white. I see that she is at least part aboriginal. I do not doubt that the aboriginal people did not get the best treatment from the British when they settled Australia. But King Charles is the wrong person to complain to. And she knows that.

It may have value as a vicarious criticism though. Instead of throwing accusations at the Australian people throwing them at the King may give Australians an opportunity to investigate these claims without feeling blamed.

Although I do admit that I don't know if this will help people in understanding the value of a treaty or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may have value as a vicarious criticism though. Instead of throwing accusations at the Australian people throwing them at the King may give Australians an opportunity to investigate these claims without feeling blamed.

Although I do admit that I don't know if this will help people in understanding the value of a treaty or not.

I have no idea how Australia acted towards its treaties. Thank goodness America never went back on any of ours

 

[Augustus]

Is investigating the human rights abuses of your ancestors and looking at ways to address the problems it has caused too political for the crown?

How about being a monarchist, is that also a political stance?

Perhaps if he truly wants to be apolitical he could step down as king which I see as very much a political figure.

A historical study of the Royal family would likely be ok, but would probably have some governmental oversight I guess.

Not sure where the line is drawn, but the government could veto anything it deemed problematic.

Advocating for a controversial Australian domestic policy would be as overtly political as you could get.

While I find it a bit odd that he is still head of state for a few countries outside Britain, there are many advantages from having an apolitical, ceremonial head of state rather than electing a political, but largely powerless head of state.

Don’t really care for the royal family, but better them than Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or Liz Truss as ceremonial president.

 

[Augustus]

The Governor General is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Th PM chooses the GG. The GG is appointed by the democratically elected government.

In Britain, the king approves laws, declares war and even appoints the PM, what tremendous power he must have!

Power ultimately flows from the crown in all cases, but this is a constitutional technicality not legally enforceable power that can be exercised on a whim.

This power only exists as a fiction, and the legal precedent is well established on primacy of part.

 

[LuisDantas]

Probably too early for it since the public needs to be better educated away from the need for a king in my view.

Sorry I did go off on a tangent there, I believe Thorpe's desire is for a treaty with first nations people and yes - the king may not have the power to decide that, but he could at least investigate it and advocate it if he finds it a worthy idea.

Actually, I doubt he has anywhere near that much power.

His predecessor did not.

 

[danieldemol]

A historical study of the Royal family would likely be ok, but would probably have some governmental oversight I guess.

Not sure where the line is drawn, but the government could veto anything it deemed problematic.

Advocating for a controversial Australian domestic policy would be as overtly political as you could get.

While I find it a bit odd that he is still head of state for a few countries outside Britain, there are many advantages from having an apolitical, ceremonial head of state rather than electing a political, but largely powerless head of state.

Don’t really care for the royal family, but better them than Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or Liz Truss as ceremonial president.

Suppose hypothetically though that during his time in power Borris Johnson wanted to unleash the military on his political opposition as Trump appears to have threatened.

Then if U.K were anything like US - the king speaking up for the rights of the opposition would become a hyper-partisan political issue much like the affairs of the aboriginal today in terms of how partisan it is. Then the king would likely take an apolitical stance to save himself in my view.

In other words the way I see it, the only thing saving you from Borris Johnson running amok is the degree to which the UK public are well informed. The king is completely useless in that respect in my view.

 

[Augustus]

Suppose hypothetically though that during his time in power Borris Johnson wanted to unleash the military on his political opposition as Trump appears to have threatened.

Then if U.K were anything like US - the king speaking up for the rights of the opposition would become a hyper-partisan political issue much like the affairs of the aboriginal today in terms of how partisan it is. Then the king would likely take an apolitical stance to save himself in my view.

If the PM was behaving legally, then the king should not speak out.

If he is behaving illegally, then it’s not his job to enforce the law.

In other words the way I see it, the only thing saving you from Borris Johnson running amok is the degree to which the UK public are well informed. The king is completely useless in that respect in my view.

There are also the laws that prevent it…

What does a ceremonial head of state have to do with any of this though?

 

[danieldemol]

If the PM was behaving legally, then the king should not speak out.

If he is behaving illegally, then it’s not his job to enforce the law.

Then in either case his monarchy is useless and should be abolished in my view.

 

[Augustus]

Then in either case his monarchy is useless and should be abolished in my view.

An elected but ceremonial head of state also couldn’t stop a rampaging Boris Johnson.

They might even be Boris Johnson.

The benefits of a monarch as ceremonial head of state are not really to do with their powers as they have none, but to do with their ability to perform ceremonial functions (as well as saving us from the boredom of meaningless elections every few years followed by half the country complaining about who they elected).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Personally, I would like to see more public displays of disparagement of the monarchy, but we Brits are a pathetic, fawning lot who are happy to scrutinise, deride and shame lifelong, hard-working politicians, but will break our own backs to turn ourselves into a red carpet for a family of gormless cretins whose only achievements were being born.

 

[Debater Slayer]

An elected but ceremonial head of state also couldn’t stop a rampaging Boris Johnson.

They might even be Boris Johnson.

Yep, I think some recent fiascos with Macron, Trump, etc., further demonstrate that an elected head of state could still act arrogantly and push unpopular policies down people's throats (e.g., raising the retirement age in France). I'm not sure that it will always or even usually be much of an improvement to go one rung up the ladder and have the head of state rather than the prime minister be the de facto leader of the country.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If she has a beef it is with the government. They are the only ones that can change the situation.
Though in reality they are unlikely to do much att all.
The better option is for her to be friendly towards the king and get him on her side. Then at least the questions will be looked at seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea how Australia acted towards its treaties. Thank goodness America never went back on any of ours

Australia didn't have treaties. The whole country is unceded territory. That's the issue that Senator Thorpe is highlighting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Th PM chooses the GG. The GG is appointed by the democratically elected government.

In Britain, the king approves laws, declares war and even appoints the PM, what tremendous power he must have!

Cut the snark or you're going back on ignore.

Power ultimately flows from the crown in all cases, but this is a constitutional technicality not legally enforceable power that can be exercised on a whim.

This power only exists as a fiction, and the legal precedent is well established on primacy of part.

Lord Byng of Vimy disagrees with you.

King–Byng affair - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If she has a beef it is with the government. They are the only ones that can change the situation.
Though in reality they are unlikely to do much att all.

Even so, why would shouting at the king be the wrong move?

We understand that even though the title to a piece of government land might list the owner as "H.M. Charles III in right of Australia," this doesn't mean that the government office, military base, or whatever is literally Charles's personal property. Why can so many people in this thread understand that shouting at H.M. Charles III might not be an appeal for him to fix the problem himself?

Her problem is with the state; why shouldn't she shout at the personal embodiment of the state, regardless of the actual powers of that individual?

I think criticising her actions id especially strange considering they happened in Parliament. I mean, think about the way debates work: all the questions are addressed to the speaker. Should we also ask "why is that MP asking the speaker about the economic impact of this tax bill? He doesn't know! He should be asking the Minister of Finance!"

In Parliament, whether you're asking the speaker questions or airing your grievances at a king, the people who can do something about your concern are listening and can respond if they choose.

The better option is for her to be friendly towards the king and get him on her side. Then at least the questions will be looked at seriously.

Why would getting the king on her side help? I thought you said he can't do anything about this situation.

 

[Augustus]

Lord Byng of Vimy disagrees with you.

That was 100 years ago.

Around the time women got the vote.

Not so relevant these days.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was 100 years ago.

Around the time women got the vote.

Not so relevant these days.

70 of those 100 years were the reign of Elizabeth II. Don't confuse her "hands-off" personal style with actual limitations on power.

Nothing in the law has changed to prevent a similar incident from happening today in any Commonwealth Realm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Australia didn't have treaties. The whole country is unceded territory. That's the issue that Senator Thorpe is highlighting.

Well that is handy. One does not have to violate one's treaties that way. Just pretend that there is no problem.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even so, why would shouting at the king be the wrong move?

We understand that even though the title to a piece of government land might list the owner as "H.M. Charles III in right of Australia," this doesn't mean that the government office, military base, or whatever is literally Charles's personal property. Why can so many people in this thread understand that shouting at H.M. Charles III might not be an appeal for him to fix the problem himself?

Her problem is with the state; why shouldn't she shout at the personal embodiment of the state, regardless of the actual powers of that individual?

I think criticising her actions id especially strange considering they happened in Parliament. I mean, think about the way debates work: all the questions are addressed to the speaker. Should we also ask "why is that MP asking the speaker about the economic impact of this tax bill? He doesn't know! He should be asking the Minister of Finance!"

In Parliament, whether you're asking the speaker questions or airing your grievances at a king, the people who can do something about your concern are listening and can respond if they choose.



Why would getting the king on her side help? I thought you said he can't do anything about this situation.

He can not instigate action.
But he can make it clear that he gives support.

 

[danieldemol]

The benefits of a monarch as ceremonial head of state are not really to do with their powers as they have none, but to do with their ability to perform ceremonial functions (as well as saving us from the boredom of meaningless elections every few years followed by half the country complaining about who they elected).

We could simply add ceremonial duties to the job description of the Governer General or other government lackey for a fraction of what it costs us to maintain the royals in my view.

I don't see how having a king saves us from elections, as we have a king and still have elections.

As for saving us from half the country complaining about who they elected, in my view they do this in Australia even though we have a king. And if somone under the king wanted to allege stolen elections fraudulently this would again be a hyper-partisan issue the apolitical king would have no say in.

So it would be an order of magnitude more cost effective for the king to abdicate in my view.