althrough I am an American the monarchy has always been very interesting to me ad I was so glad to hear you had a RUclips channel! ive spent hours reading your work and I just wanted to thank you.
That was really really fascinating! Thank you for this and all your other videos. I might be a little biased, but this issue blindingly shows the stupidity of remaining a monarchy and not becoming a republic. Regards, Peter
Of course, when we cut off the head of King Charles I, he was separately also King of Scots and King of Ireland, so nothing new in having separate Crowns there…
Your linked article is an interesting read. I'm Irish, and we dropped out of any relationship with the Crown fairly early on, which I'd say has been to our benefit. I note you remark that the Australian legislation mentions "the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland", a Crown which (a) no longer exists in that form, and (b) is no longer sovereign over Australia, which now has its own Crown. Does all the fossilised junk in legislation ever get cleaned out?
Yes, it would be good if we could clean it out of our Constitution, but that requires a referendum, which is an expensive exercise and usually fails. So we just have to be flexible and squint when reading outdated parts of the Constitution. As for legislation, most of it has been cleaned up, although for historic reasons there is still a bit of archaic material floating around.
Exactly. The system is designed to be flexible enough to cope with the unexpected. Well at least in the UK. Australia seems to like making straightjackets for itself, but with some co-operative lawmaking between Australia and the UK any issue to be worked around.
I would assume if there was a long term regency then the UK parliament would legislate (following a resolution passed in the Australian Parliament) to allow the regent to appoint a governor general for Australia only).
It's not exactly the same - s 15(1) requires unanimity, whereas s 51(38) requires the request or concurrence of the Parliaments of the States directly concerned. But the mechanism is the same.
In the absence of legislation surrounding regency here in the Commonwealth, would this in any way be a case to support resurrecting appointments to the Privy Council of Australian Ministers in order to have a single unified instrument have effect in the commonwealth? i.e. a selection of executive councillors appointed to the Privy Council who can simultaneously constitute a quorum of the Executive Council at the same place and time that which the Privy Council convenes? Separately, on a tangental thought because thinking of the Privy Council caused me to think of its Judicial Committee, can the King personally exercise the powers of Justices and Magistrates? i.e. if he were so inclined to do so, could he take up bench duties for a day? My logic here is that judicial officers derive their power from the King, although in practicality, that logic may be significantly flawed.
No, that wouldn't help. In Australia, the Federal Executive Council can operate even without a functioning King. The point of regency legislation is to cover things that only the King can do - like appoint or remove a Governor-General.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 In the event that a regency were enacted in the UK but Australia still lacked relevant legislation, how would the matter of King's consent be navigated? Would Parliament need to rely on the UK Regency implying consent, or would the absence of explicit cause an indefinite period of Administrators succeeding to Administrators? Furthermore, should those dormant commissions be exhausted, section 126 of the Constitution appears to present a further impasse, as its language seems to necessitate that the Sovereign personally authorise the commissioning of any additional deputies. I can appreciate that King's consent is a matter of convention and isn't explicitly require, but simultaneously calls for concern that circumvention extraordinarius could be construed by parliament as precedent in future, rather than a case of constitutional force majeure
It is not clear what you are saying. King's consent and royal assent are two different things. King's consent (to laws that affect his prerogatives, etc) applies in the UK, but not Australia. I have written about the regency laws in detail in the Public Law Review, but it is paywalled. Here, however, is another article that I wrote for a Canadian journal (hence the Canadian emphasis), which is at least open access, so you can read it if interested: www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/03_Twomey.pdf.
In the UK the King still has extensive formal duties - assenting to laws, holding Privy Council meetings, receiving the credentials of ambassadors, etc. David Torrance gives a good rundown of them here: twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1755254948277702802. In terms of power - the monarch has considerable 'soft power' which is exercised by way of influence and persuasion behind closed doors. It is not seen by the public and there are laws that prevent anyone from knowing - until at least five years after the monarch's death. We are therefore yet to know what power Queen Elizabeth II exercised, and certainly have no idea about what King Charles III has done.
althrough I am an American the monarchy has always been very interesting to me ad I was so glad to hear you had a RUclips channel! ive spent hours reading your work and I just wanted to thank you.
You are most welcome - I hope you enjoy it!
I didn't realise how interesting this question actually is. Thanks again for the details!
That was really really fascinating! Thank you for this and all your other videos. I might be a little biased, but this issue blindingly shows the stupidity of remaining a monarchy and not becoming a republic. Regards, Peter
If the USA is your example of how a republic system surpasses our constitutional monarchy, then I can't agree.
Trying not to comment on women's attire, but I so loved the crown broch worn during a lecture on the King.
Thanks. I like it too. I got it from Westminster Abbey shop.
Well spotted!
Of course, when we cut off the head of King Charles I, he was separately also King of Scots and King of Ireland, so nothing new in having separate Crowns there…
Your linked article is an interesting read. I'm Irish, and we dropped out of any relationship with the Crown fairly early on, which I'd say has been to our benefit. I note you remark that the Australian legislation mentions "the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland", a Crown which (a) no longer exists in that form, and (b) is no longer sovereign over Australia, which now has its own Crown. Does all the fossilised junk in legislation ever get cleaned out?
Yes, it would be good if we could clean it out of our Constitution, but that requires a referendum, which is an expensive exercise and usually fails. So we just have to be flexible and squint when reading outdated parts of the Constitution. As for legislation, most of it has been cleaned up, although for historic reasons there is still a bit of archaic material floating around.
"It would be wise... to try and resolve the question while there's not a crisis"
Where's the fun in that? 😀
Exactly. The system is designed to be flexible enough to cope with the unexpected. Well at least in the UK. Australia seems to like making straightjackets for itself, but with some co-operative lawmaking between Australia and the UK any issue to be worked around.
Thanks for the video!
I would assume if there was a long term regency then the UK parliament would legislate (following a resolution passed in the Australian Parliament) to allow the regent to appoint a governor general for Australia only).
No, that is no longer possible since the enactment of s 1 of the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth) and (UK).
Hmm , so S. 15 of the Australia Acts is a mirror of S 51( 38 ) ? ( the unanimity procedure )
It's not exactly the same - s 15(1) requires unanimity, whereas s 51(38) requires the request or concurrence of the Parliaments of the States directly concerned. But the mechanism is the same.
In the absence of legislation surrounding regency here in the Commonwealth, would this in any way be a case to support resurrecting appointments to the Privy Council of Australian Ministers in order to have a single unified instrument have effect in the commonwealth? i.e. a selection of executive councillors appointed to the Privy Council who can simultaneously constitute a quorum of the Executive Council at the same place and time that which the Privy Council convenes?
Separately, on a tangental thought because thinking of the Privy Council caused me to think of its Judicial Committee, can the King personally exercise the powers of Justices and Magistrates? i.e. if he were so inclined to do so, could he take up bench duties for a day? My logic here is that judicial officers derive their power from the King, although in practicality, that logic may be significantly flawed.
No, that wouldn't help. In Australia, the Federal Executive Council can operate even without a functioning King. The point of regency legislation is to cover things that only the King can do - like appoint or remove a Governor-General.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 In the event that a regency were enacted in the UK but Australia still lacked relevant legislation, how would the matter of King's consent be navigated? Would Parliament need to rely on the UK Regency implying consent, or would the absence of explicit cause an indefinite period of Administrators succeeding to Administrators? Furthermore, should those dormant commissions be exhausted, section 126 of the Constitution appears to present a further impasse, as its language seems to necessitate that the Sovereign personally authorise the commissioning of any additional deputies. I can appreciate that King's consent is a matter of convention and isn't explicitly require, but simultaneously calls for concern that circumvention extraordinarius could be construed by parliament as precedent in future, rather than a case of constitutional force majeure
It is not clear what you are saying. King's consent and royal assent are two different things. King's consent (to laws that affect his prerogatives, etc) applies in the UK, but not Australia.
I have written about the regency laws in detail in the Public Law Review, but it is paywalled. Here, however, is another article that I wrote for a Canadian journal (hence the Canadian emphasis), which is at least open access, so you can read it if interested: www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/03_Twomey.pdf.
Incomprehensible
Shirt answer nothing because it is 2024 not 1524
What duties? He doesn't have any outside of ribbon cutting.The Royal Family has no "power"!
In the UK the King still has extensive formal duties - assenting to laws, holding Privy Council meetings, receiving the credentials of ambassadors, etc. David Torrance gives a good rundown of them here: twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1755254948277702802. In terms of power - the monarch has considerable 'soft power' which is exercised by way of influence and persuasion behind closed doors. It is not seen by the public and there are laws that prevent anyone from knowing - until at least five years after the monarch's death. We are therefore yet to know what power Queen Elizabeth II exercised, and certainly have no idea about what King Charles III has done.
karma for his infidelity and blood on his hands
hanssolos3699 exactly WHAT blood on his hands?? If you have solid evidens for your claim then go to the Police or just shut your mouth