Royal Sex Tape Scandal

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by AussieSheila@7 November 2003 - 22:09
...The Queen is not our Head of State, the Governer General is. The Queen has no actual power in this country. The only thing she could do is sack the Governor General and when she was asked to do that in Canada she declined on the grounds that it would create a constitutional crisis, which it would...

I have no idea where you got that from, but it's incorrect.

Canada has never asked to have Adrienne Clarkson removed from office. People are upset about the spending, and the Alliance and Catholic Church are upset about the same-sex endorsement, but there's never been any talk of having her forcibly removed from office.

Are you sure you're not confusing your own Governor-General with ours?

[AussieSheila]

It could be incorrect, this is where I got it from. I don't know who they are talking about regarding the Canadian Governor General.

Dismissal of the Governor-General
At present the Prime Minister cannot dismiss the Governor-General - He can only ask the Queen to dismiss him. The claim is made that if Whitlam had asked the Queen to dismiss Sir John Kerr she would have had to do so immediately.

This is an untried, unwarranted assumption. It has never happened in Australia. It has however in Canada.

In Canada, I understand, the Prime Minister did once ask the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General. The Queen pointed out that if she did there would be a Constitutional crisis - as there would have been in Australia. It would have left the nation with a government who could not get supply in Parliament but with no mechanism to dismiss the government and resolve the crisis with fresh elections.

In the situation in Canada the Queen consulted with the Prime Minister and with the Governor-General and arranged an orderly hand over to a new Governor-General as the old one resigned.

SOURCE

[Rat Faced]

Im glad you didnt become a Republic Shiela, as the PM already as too much power... the "Royal Perogatives" are much more frightening than the "Reserved".

Among the powers theoretically possessed by the monarch under the Royal Prerogative are:

The power to select and dismiss ministers;
The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
The powers of clemency and pardon;
The awarding of dignities and honours;
The declaration of war;
The declaration of an emergency;
The granting of Charters of Incorporation;
The collection of tolls;
The issuing of passports and their revoking;
The expulsion of a foreign nationals;
The creation of new common law courts;
The creation of new universities;
The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
The printing of the authorised Church of England version of The Bible;
The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council.
The monarch is also immune from prosecution in the courts, though the scope of the immunity that once attached to the Crown has reduced.

Most powers execised by the government in international and foreign affairs come from the Royal Prerogative. These include

The accreditation of diplomats;
The granting of Sovereign Immunity;
The negotiation of treaties;
Many uses of the prerogative in foreign affairs are called Acts of State.

Among the odder royal prerogatives are:

The power to order a subject of His or Her Majesty not to leave the realm;
Royal ownership of swans.

In reality these powers are all exercised by the Prime Minister, who instructs the monarch as to when to use them.

In 2003, prior to British involvement in the war on Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair in a major break with precedent sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. However Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he would not formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative and declare war. Given that Blair had an overwhelming Labour majority in the British House of Commons and had the support of the opposition Conservative Party, there was little likelihood that parliament would vote down the motion recommending participation in the war. It remains to be seen whether a future government with a small majority or in a minority in the House of Commons will seek parliamentary approval prior to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Former left wing Labour MP Tony Benn campaigned for the abolition of the Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, arguing that all governmental powers in effect exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and cabinet should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and require parliamentary approval. He attempts however were unsuccessful, with successive governments arguing that such is the breath of topics covered by the Royal Prerogative that requiring parliamentary approval in each instance where the prerogative is currently used would overwhelm parliamentary time and slow down the process of parliamentary enactment of legislation.

I emphasised the powers that the PM has.... as you can see, the Governer General is just a balance that can dismiss the PM if he gets too....enthusiastic?

The Republican blueprint in Australia would have given the Australian Prime Minister total power......he could declare war, without Parliamentary approval, and no one could remove him from office.

This isnt to say that a Republic wouldnt work. In my opinion though, if you want a President and a Prime Minister...then they should be totally independant of each other. Possibly both posts being elected seperately.

Currently:

I think the Queen is the "Head of State", as you fall into the catagory of a "Commonwealth Realm" (as opposed to Commonwealth Nation). However as there are 16 Commonwealth Realms, it would be physically impossible for the Queen to fulfill that job in all of them.

The Realm therefore appoints a Governor General to act upon the Queen behalf, and he/she is the de facto Head of State.

I think that it is upto the individual countries; how its decided who to appoint to the position. As has been said, the only power the Queen could exercise is the dismissal of the Governor General.


Magic probably knows a lot more about it than me

[MagicNakor]

Well, the Queen's the de facto head of State in Canada (and any other Commonwealth Realm), which is a constitutional monarchy. The Commonwealth of Nations (or British Commonwealth) is an association that's been formed with the United Kingdom and its former colonies.

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

[AussieSheila]

My point was not so much what role the Queen plays, or how much power she does or doesn't have. It was really that Australia DID NOT vote to keep the Queen. The majority of Australians voted to keep a system they were accustomed to and comfortable with because the way the questions were worded made it seem like Saddam Hussien could be president if he wanted and the Australian people would have no say in it. There were also a couple (I think, it was a while ago) of phrases in the Preamble which were designed to scare people from agreeing to it. An ALMOST apology to the Aborigines it might have been? Which then led to scare tactics about Koori's suing for the better part of Australia. I don't have time right now to research the details (don't s'pose anyone actually cares anyway) but I listened to people being frightened out of voting for a Republic, and much as I tried I was unable to convince them (that I had contact with) otherwise.

Like I said, nothing against the Royals. Quite a lot of Australia feels just the way I do. (Hmmm. Could just be the female population, going by the comments of my partner, who is a Pom btw, but that's a lot of us.) We feel desperately sorry for them, especially Harry and Wills, we loved Diana, think Charles is a bit of a twit, but OK. The thing is, we're all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.

So, call her Head of State if you want, I'd just rather admire her from afar, as ruler of your country not mine.

B)

[*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»]

Originally posted by AussieSheila@8 November 2003 - 06:54
My point was not so much what role the Queen plays, or how much power she does or doesn't have. It was really that Australia DID NOT vote to keep the Queen. The majority of Australians voted to keep a system they were accustomed to and comfortable with because the way the questions were worded made it seem like Saddam Hussien could be president if he wanted and the Australian people would have no say in it. There were also a couple (I think, it was a while ago) of phrases in the Preamble which were designed to scare people from agreeing to it. An ALMOST apology to the Aborigines it might have been? Which then led to scare tactics about Koori's suing for the better part of Australia. I don't have time right now to research the details (don't s'pose anyone actually cares anyway) but I listened to people being frightened out of voting for a Republic, and much as I tried I was unable to convince them (that I had contact with) otherwise.

Like I said, nothing against the Royals. Quite a lot of Australia feels just the way I do. (Hmmm. Could just be the female population, going by the comments of my partner, who is a Pom btw, but that's a lot of us.) We feel desperately sorry for them, especially Harry and Wills, we loved Diana, think Charles is a bit of a twit, but OK. The thing is, we're all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.

So, call her Head of State if you want, I'd just rather admire her from afar, as ruler of your country not mine.

B)

So basically you are saying that your fellow countrymen and women would prefer to not have the Queen as head of state because they may end up with Saddam Hussien as leader, wow, are you Aussies really that stupid ?

[*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»]

Originally posted by AussieSheila@8 November 2003 - 06:54
The thing is, we're all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.

Well who is holding on to those apron strings ?
Do you think we (British) are holding you back ?
Do you need some scissors ?

[Neil__]

Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»+7 November 2003 - 14:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö» @ 7 November 2003 - 14:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Neil__@7 November 2003 - 12:34
<!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»

@7 November 2003 - 13:29
You lot need to remember they are the most high profile family in the world, as soon as a juicy rumour starts it&#39;s relayed worldwide through the media like wild fire, and because people sit up and listen it sells papers (tabloids).
Keep lining the tabloids pockets and they will keep feeding you the shit.
Thank god our press have been gagged, who gives a shit what they get up to anyway, the royals are for all you tourists to talk about, they earn us Brits a fortune in tourism ?

And they would still earn us a fortune even if we didn&#39;t pay them hundreds of millions each year

That money means they work for me "The Taxpayer" so as charlies employer I want to know who he&#39;s been diddling on my time.

and yes the tabloids are scum but that&#39;s no reason to deny us the right to know.


Neil

The right to know what? Who he has been "diddling" with, what he had for breakfast? How many times he yanked one of last night? Where do you draw the line?
It bullshit anyway, i&#39;m no royalist but i do think that compared to some of the scum walking the face of this earth today, they are an honest and extremley honurable family (present day royals).
We should be talking about what are we going to do with that bastard that murdered those two young girls, i know he has yet to be convicted, but have you seen the evidence against him?
Suggestions for a slow painfull death in this thread please. [/b][/quote]
No, Just diddling.

Neil.