FnF on hold for Royal Wedding

[BunniesMan]

I'm pleased that a genius disagrees with me. Kinda vindicating. The constitution is the supreme law of the land because it works and we like it. Not because the Royal Family tells us to. Their influence ceased shortly after it was introduced

f**king idiot. the monarchy features a bit in the supreme law of the land. We are a Constitutional Monarchy. That's our form of government. Monarchy = the royal family. To say their influence "ceased" is simply ridiculous.

And in the news today, a poll says support for changing to a republic are the lowest they've been in 30 years. We won't get rid of the monarchy while the Queen is around. And if we don't vote to get rid of it during what will be Charles's short reign, we won't get rid of it when William and Kate are King and Queen (unless he cheats on her with any horse looking women) and we'll have the monarchy for another 50+ years.

So to say their influence is nonexistant is plain wrong. There is no argument here. You're just wrong.

 

[adamkungl]

So, so wrong. Just because you don't like the Royal family doesn't mean they don't influence this country in meaningful ways. That influence may be declining, but we are still a constitutional monarchy and part of the Commonwealth, and the Queen is still our Head of State. Our judicial system still references the Crown frequently, our currency still has the Queen's face on it and th Australian Constitution Act still makes clear references to the Commonwealth, the Crown and the Queen. To say they don't influence this country is wrong. Until we become a republic then you are just going to have to live with it. The end.

Is that the best you can come up with? References on constitutional documents written 110 years ago and a system of government formed at the same time? It proves they were influential in 1900 but is not the greatest indication of their influence today. Regarding the coins and so on, again I don't think influence is the right word. Try "presence". The only real influence they have had in decades was wielded this week when they threatened to pull the braodcast rights from the ABC for their Chaser plans. Humourless old tarts from the old dart

^this. Face on coins does not = influence. The results of their influence remain, obviously. When was the last time the Queen made a decision relevant to this country. Or any decision, in fact.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/preamble.htm

It is the supreme law of the country after all. The Royal family may not have used it's powers in a long time, but it can do so at any time it so wishes. Given that, if the Royal family wants to influence the functioning of this country, it can do so at any time it wishes. Don't ever forget that as long as we are part of the Commonwealth, and the Queen is our head of state, they can do as they please when they please. They might not use it, but they can use it. Sounds like a nuclear arsenal actually. It might not get used but it's influence AND presence dictates much of what is done.

They could, but they don't, and haven't in a looong time. Which is what I said in the first place. They are irrelevant. Hell they're barely relevant in the UK, the PM runs the country.

If the Royals actually tried to wield their "influence" here it would imo immediately lead to a massive swing towards becoming a republic.

 

[Timmah]

As for the ABC Chaser issue. That had nothing to do with the royals. It was the Associated Press who have banned anyone from using the live feed for satire. The royals have probably never heard of the Chaser.

Actually, the order came from Prince Charles' media manager at Clarence House.

 

[Timmah]

As for the influence of the royal family, it's mostly subjective. Many feel an affiliation with them, many don't. That's life.

 

[El Diablo]

I bet if 9 had the AFL, they would show that.

bet on it seeing this bloke now is CEO http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b-tv-goal-hinges-on-nine/story-e6frf9jf-1226011650222

 

[BunniesMan]

Actually, the order came from Prince Charles' media manager at Clarence House.

Both parties agreed to it during negotiations. Don't blame Clarence House when it's the AP's fault.

 

[Timmah]

Clarence House requested the ABC not use it. AP is merely the messenger. Stop being an imbecile.

 

[PaulyTom]

Disgrace CH9 . Hope they lose the rights

 

[manly40gimps0]

Clarence House requested the ABC not use it. AP is merely the messenger. Stop being an imbecile.

Thats a bit hypocritical isn't it?

 

[Dazraider]

So, so wrong. Just because you don't like the Royal family doesn't mean they don't influence this country in meaningful ways. That influence may be declining, but we are still a constitutional monarchy and part of the Commonwealth, and the Queen is still our Head of State. Our judicial system still references the Crown frequently, our currency still has the Queen's face on it and th Australian Constitution Act still makes clear references to the Commonwealth, the Crown and the Queen. To say they don't influence this country is wrong. Until we become a republic then you are just going to have to live with it. The end.

So you would also agree our tax payers money on the australians going over there to represent us is money worth spent instead of using that to fix our own country up?

 

[kurt faulk]

.

f**k you channel 9 you f**king mother f**king c**k sucking mother f**kers. no wonder that staion has gone backwards, it's run by f**king idiots who suck big elephant dicks. f**king lollipoping f**kers.

.

 

[skeepe]

Couldn't be bothered reading a long boring thread about a long boring event. Where's the f**king footy?

 

[CC_Roosters]

A bad feeling 9 won't cut out at the alloted time

 

[skeepe]

A bad feeling 9 won't cut out at the alloted time

Yep. The f**king thing hasn't even started.

 

[no name]

A bad feeling 9 won't cut out at the alloted time

Come on, it's not like them to tell us one thing, then do another. :shock:

 

[ANTiLAG]

I'm not even Australian but I fear I know more of your history and the legalities of your constitution. Anyway, Australia had a constitutional crisis in 1975; and the governor-general dismissed your prime minister who lacked supply.

The Queen's representative Private Secretarty, Sir Marthin Chateris, dated 17 November 1975, had this to say;

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.


The Constitutional Monarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#cite_note-82 of Australia, like the rest of the Commonwealth is ceremonial. The Executive/PM selects the appointed Governor - Generals; and if you think if a Monarch tried to interfere with a state politically, let alone legally, that parliament would not pass 'revolutionary' legislation - then you are sadly mistaken. Yes - a governor-general may refuse to sign - but lets be honest, Australia would either replace the governor-general or become a republic overnight. The governor - general has reserve powers relating to AUstralian Parliament; not the Queen or the monarchy. The Queen herself in 1975 admits that she has no lawful place in the law making or decision making of your law or politics due to your constitution. And an Australian appointed by an Australian Prime Minister is your governer-general as her representative? Only for ceremony. The constitution under s61 prescribes power to the Governor-General, the Governor - General is bound by the constitution.

Influence - pffft. Ceremony.

 

[user_nat]

As a screw you to 9, you should watch the wedding on 7!

 

[CC_Roosters]

I'm not even Australian but I fear I know more of your history and the legalities of your constitution. Anyway, Australia had a constitutional crisis in 1975; and the governor-general dismissed your prime minister who lacked supply.

The Queen's representative Private Secretarty, Sir Marthin Chateris, dated 17 November 1975, had this to say;

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.


The Constitutional Monarchy of Australia, like the rest of the Commonwealth is ceremonial. The Executive/PM selects the appointed Governor - Generals; and if you think if a Monarch tried to interfere with a state politically, let alone legally, that parliament would not pass 'revolutionary' legislation - then you are sadly mistaken. Yes - a governor-general may refuse to sign - but lets be honest, Australia would either replace the governor-general or become a republic overnight. The governor - general has reserve powers relating to AUstralian Parliament; not the Queen or the monarchy. The Queen herself in 1975 admits that she has no lawful place in the law making or decision making of your law or politics due to your constitution. And an Australian appointed by an Australian Prime Minister is your governer-general as her representative? Only for ceremony. The constitution under s61 prescribes power to the Governor-General, the Governor - General is bound by the constitution.

Influence - pffft. Ceremony.

Correct. In the UK i beleive the monarch retains theoretical political power due to the limitiations of a unwritten constition, they would never ever be used. But long may they reign, no more expensive than an elected head of state and certainly generates more bucks for the UK through foreign interest/tourism.

And William old boy she is stunning! ;-)

 

[no name]

As a screw you to 9, you should watch the wedding on 7!

People are actually watching it?

Sh!t just as I write Austar has cut out. :crazy:

 

[skeepe]

What's Josh McCrone doing there?