Do people really care about King Charles?

[Elise2525]

Or was the Queen the last real monarch of the UK?

[RavVid]

I don't care about King Charles III of Australia at all. Most Australians are barely aware of the monarch and don't give a zac.

However I DO CARE ABOUT THE MONARCHY A LOT. Not for the bling. Australia just isn't good at bling whilst the Brits are masters of it. The carriage he will use was built in Australia though.

IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE that I care deeply about as it is far superior to a presidential system. The whole beauty of it is the monarch is constitutionally obliged to do nothing.

I think you are from the US and you won't get that. If invited, I will rant on why our system is better than your system. :)

[NamerOfStars]

The UK hasn't had a "real" monarch in a very long time- they began to break it down after John, centuries before the "united" kingdom even existed. The only reason it even exists on paper is because of the Magna Carta; for all practical intents and purposes, the UK is a democracy.

I don't think Charles will accomplish much as king; but then, no one else could, either- he's more a figurehead than anything else. Do they even allow him to vote in elections?

[NamerOfStars]

I looked it up- apparently, he CAN vote, but they usually don't, to stay more politically neutral, so he really has less power than the average UK citizen. Interestingly, the UK allows *IRISH* people to vote in their elections (not the North- they're part of the UK- but the Republic, which has been independent for a century). I have no idea why.

[RavVid]

At a time any commonwealth citizen could vote if in England at the time. Similarly Brits could vote in Australian elections if in Australia. An Australian citizen has to be resident in UK for 6 months to vote in their elections. Brits are more restricted in Australia having to have been on the electoral rolls before a certain year. Irish can vote in UK elections and Brits in Irish elections excepting referendum and for Irish president.

So the why is that citizens of the empire were citizens no matter where they were. When it changed from empire to the British Commonwealth it didn't change being a citizen. Citizens get to vote. That simple.

[NamerOfStars]

@RavVid But the Irish AREN'T part of the empire- they haven't been in a century. Citizens OF THE EMPIRE may get to vote, but Ireland isn't like India or Australia; they're ACTUALLY independent.

[RavVid]

Australia, Canada, India aren't independent countries? We most certainly are. Ireland was a Republic within the Commonwealth for a time and as a dominion for a shorter time. It seems there was a reciprocal agreement but it is not clear when that was made.

I am not saying this ain't quaint, it is a very quaint British compromise and all the more charming for it. The UK grants the right to vote without reciprocity.

It is not too late for the US either by the way. You could apply to be a member of the Commonwealth as a Republic so absolutely no constitutional changes required - everything stays the same on your side.

[NamerOfStars]

@RavVid If the head of your government is the king of England, then you're not independent. The last several have been reasonable people in touch with reality, but if the only thing keeping YOUR OWN LAWS from returning to you their yoke is the Parliament of another country (and Canada doesn't even have THAT anymore), then you can hardly be said to have shaken them off. We fought two wars to end that here; the Irish did even more.

[RavVid]

You are way wrong :)!

The head of government is not the Monarch of Australia but is our Prime Minister. There are claims that the Monarch is the head of state but that is just leftist clap trap and a latterday concept. Comes from Charles de Gaulle and the 5th French Republic so far as I can tell and has nothing to do with us and is just a frenchified thing.

I am sort of teasing you a bit but things have moved on from 1776. So don't see it in your light.

You had a war and we had a cricket match instead. Less bloodshed and ticket sales to boot. Quintessentially an Australian way to settle things on the sporting field. As ALL ENGLAND lost, Australian gov't was inevitable.

But our states already had self government long before then. In my state of Victoria we had a parliament just 20 years after the first ship dropped off a mob of sheep to go forth and multiply. All the states had parliament/independence between roughly 1830 to 1860. The UK wanted an Australian gov't very early but my state Victoria hated NSW and wanted Victoria to be a nation itself. Took a while to get over that.

Yes the Australian constitution was an act of the UK parliament circa 1900 but it was written by Australians (who pinched a lot of yours by the way). In a highly technical sense, YES the UK could have revoked that act at any time. In the same highly technical sense the monarch could refuse assent (veto) in the UK or Australia and many other countries. In practice that will never happen because the monarchy won't exist after doing so. In practice for the same reason the UK could never have legislated away our constitution.

[RavVid]

So we take 1901 as the start point of the Australian nation. But you would still have a point because it took till the Statute of Westminster 1931 till Australia, Canada to be declared equal with the UK and we got so excited that we couldn't be fussed enabling it till 1942. But still decisions from our High court could still be appealed to the Privy Council in London until abolished in 1968.

Even then, it took to 1986 to remove any residual powers of UK parliament and Canada did much the same at the same time. Similarly they converted the UK Monarch into the Canadian Monarch just as Australia converted the UK Monarch into the Australian Monarch (1973) .

You could take any of these dates but it was just tidying up loose ends (or quaint compromises) after 1901 in reality and took so long because it wasn't an issue and not worth the effort.

Credos to the US. The Great Britain experience from 1776 engendered a change of approach to colonies. So American Independence can fairly be said to be in the linage of the independence of a number of former colonies.

[Christoff92]

You got one old fart for a British Monarch another old fart for US President. Are we going to see wheelchairs very soon 😁🤣

[inhua]

no not really. Harry already broke him down and he's too weak to stand up to his son

at least William might have the balls to do something about it to his brother

[Rudon00]

🤔🤔 I don't think King Charles gets much traction as the queen did. I personally don't have time to spend following up on him

[OfDeath]

I dont know who you mean

[Anonymous]

I sure as hell don't.