an australian republic?

Quite true pragmatic - the monarchy even in the UK is now an anachronism. The struggle between Parliament and Crown was over many years ago and Parliament won. The monarch has residual powersthat would never be used (especially since the demise of Charles 1).

What are the constitutional aspects of an Australian republic?

The concept of the King or Queen in Parliament does not date from the execution of Charles Stuart (January, 1649), but rather from the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. It was at that point when Parliament had run out Charles' second son James, and invited his daughter Mary and son-in-law William of Orange, Count of Nassau and Stadtholder of Holland to accept a jointly-held crown on condition of the guarantee of a Protestant monarchical descent in the right line that the concept of the King in Parliament arises. Mary and William died without heir, and were succeeded by Mary's sister Anne, who died without heir, and the monarchy reverted to the issue of Sophia of Hanover, dowager Electress and granddaughter of James Stuart I (regnit 1603-25)--both of whom were descended from Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry, Earl of Richmond and seventh King in England of that name, and Elizabeth of York. Sophia was pretty damned hard-headed, as were her descendants, George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV and finally Victoria, from whom the "descent in the right line" passed by the distaff side to the Saxe-Gotha-Cobergs of her husband, Albert, who renamed themselves Windsor and are the line of the current monarchy.

The Georges, as had done Charles Stuart II, avoided open conflict with Parliament--in the case of the Hanoverians, over matters covered in the settlement at the time of the Glorious Revolution. Nevertheless, they attempted to rule by monarchical right, which inevitably lead to conflict with Parliament, which usually weilded the weapon of the purse strings. George I spoke no English, and gave away the store, for as much as Parliament could not prevent him, to his German favorites. His son George II had served with the army of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy in the War of the Spanish Succession, and he spoke English and knew the English well, but followed as much as he was able the policy of attempting to rule without reference to Parliament. Neither of them was entirely successful, but neither was Parliament yet sufficiently well-organized to mount an effective effort to rein in the monarchy. With the rise of Walpole and the creation of a controlling party apparatus in Parliament, the days of "divine right" were doomed. The crises of the Seven Years War, which stretched around the globe from the valley of the Ohio River to the Carnatic and Malabar coasts of India eventually brought forth William Pitt, without whom neither Parliament nor the Crown could have maintained their position against the French. Discarded as soon as the war was safely won, Pitt was booted upstairs to the Lords as the Earl of Chatham in 1761, and George III attempted to form a government with his boyhood tutor and crony, the Earl of Bute. It was a dismal failure, but George persisted in forcing governments on the Parliament recruited from among his sycophants, with disasterous results in the period preceding and during the American revolution. In his dotage, George again displayed the madness which had seized him in 1789, and he was finally replaced by his eldest son, George Prince of Wales, who became George, Prince Regent, succeeding his father in 1820 as George IV. He reverted to the style of Charles II, keeping a parsimonious household, but with as regal a style as possible, and avoiding the burdens of true leadership so as to avoid a clash with Parliament. He was succeeded by his younger brother William IV. William was a strange and divided personality, who at first worked closely with Earl Gray on Parliamentary reform, but scenting Tory opposition, bolted and attempted to have the Duke of Wellington form a government opposed to reform. The effort failed, and an humiliated William was forced to recall Lord Gray to form a government, dedicated to reform, and assent to a creation of peers to ram reform throught the Lords. Therefore, true Parliamentary government with a monarchical figurehead as head of state did not definitively arrive in England until 1832. William's neice and successor, Victoria, can be said to be the first true monarch to reign as Queen in Parliament. When the canny PM Lloyd George sent a budget to the Lords which he knew they would reject, and then called for a creation of peers to pass the bill, the last vestige of aristocratic power was wiped from the government and the Lords surrendered the veto in the Parliament Act of 1911.

That's the short of it, i won't trouble you with the long of it.

BBB
Goodfield, anything that send the royals to their rooms, permanently, is worth considering.

Could you give us more specific information about the Oz proposal, please?

BBB

Put away the Monarchy but don't become a Republic for god sake! Become a true Democracy. If Australia becomes a Republic they will be just as screwed up as the United States.

Nah - we're not gung-ho enough! We'll do it differently, I hope!

Thank you Set - as illuminating as ever. I enjoy those mini-lectures, so much to follow up on.

BBB we're in a bit of a hole at the moment, the republican movement I mean. It's faded out of the public view and I think the movement itself is still torn with previous battles. I have no doubt my analysis is flawed and somewhat simplistic but there seemed to be a tremendous struggle between those proponents of the republic who wanted a popular election for president and those who wanted the president appointed by the Parliament. That cause a rent in the fabric that would not be mended.

roverroad - the US is a democracy and a republic and we will be the same. I keep reading in various places that a democracy and a republic are differenent one from the other but they're complementary. I think the idea of the Founding Fathers of the US that there needed to be a mechanism to prevent the tyranny of the majority has caused this what I think is a misintepretation.

You're right to caution us though. We need to ensure that we retain our liberal democratic values and mechanisms even as we move to replace the monarchy with our own president. I think we will favour a minimialist model of republic, keeping our current parliament (which like the US has two elected chambers) and simply replacing the monarch with our president.

Goodfielder
Goodfielder wrote: "...there seemed to be a tremendous struggle between those proponents of the republic who wanted a popular election for president and those who wanted the president appointed by the Parliament. That cause a rent in the fabric that would not be mended."

Is it possible that those opposed to tossing out the royals created this wedge issue on purpose to divide the proponents of the change and cause it to die?

BBB

heyy guyss...couldn help but noticing the issue at hand here.I'm Chris Burkina. I've been in the legal profession for about 10 years now. I for one support an Australian republic. There are many important reasons why Australia should become a republic. However, I would not delve into those reasons as I'm going to give a brief on the legal aspects involve here. I think this would be of help to david. Firstly, to achieve a republic, consitutional change under section 128 of the constitution is necessary. This can be done through a referendum where the people will get the chance to decide. However, history has proved that this is a very difficult method in altering the constitution as only 8 out of 44 referendums has been successful. This is why I feel it is going to be hard to achieve an Australian republic. However, more people are becoming away of this issue and I feel that an Australian republic is inevitable. As members of a democracy, we have to be patient and wait for the due process to take its course. In the meantime, all republicans would have to exploit the available avenues in the push for an Australian republic. It is about time Australians forgo the current system in favour of a republic. It is about time the constitution is changed to reflect Australians notions of democracy and its diversity.

Re: Goodfielder


It is quite possible they used this wedge issue to their advantage, BBB! :wink:

I would hope that were a republic established, you would have the direct election of your President, or whatever other form of Chief Magistrate you would choose. In the United States, the Electoral College was established to deal with the issue of sovereignty among separate and equal states--but that condition has never applied to the states of Australia. Additionally, the College was instituted as a bulwark against the domination of government by populous states to the detriment of small states. I don't know the demographics, but i doubt that the condition obtains in your country. States such as Wyoming and Montana have fewer than a million inhabitants, while California has more than thrity million. Does such an unbalanced comparison apply in Australia? I would prefer that we had direct popular election of the President, were it not for the potential disfranchisement of sparsely populated states--and i therefore reluctantly support the continuation of the Electoral College.

We have huge differences in population.


And I think we are happy with Westminster type parliamentary system.

I think the whatever is seen as a figure head.

I would hate to see us adopt an American presidential style system, personally.

I have some thoughts on this, too. Gotta run now, though.
Later.

Interesting post.

Hello & welcome to A2K, Chris.

Heeey..chris. thanks alot for that post. Could you please send that to my email add at [email protected] using your working email? thanks...would reallly appreciate it.

Chris Burkina

Thanks for that addition and welcome to A2K!