Anne, I want to say a huge thank you for your videos on Australian constitutional law. They are all very engaging, even for a non-Australian and relatable due to our shared histories.
In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, a GG normally serves roughly 5 years but in the Caribbean, a GG has no such term limit and can serve for as long as they please or as long as they don't fall out of favour with the PM
If I may request a topic I've seen many Tasmanians wonder about the past few weeks - What would happen hypothetically if the Liberals couldn't get any independents to ensure confidence and supply, and Labor stuck to its 'election defeat' and didn't attempt to (or failed to) get enough independents to govern in minority? Would the Greens as the next largest party get a chance to build a deal with one of the Majors and some independents? Is a Green premier possible (hypothetically), given the makeup of the new Tasmanian parliament?
Yes, s 88 of the Constitution of PNG says that the GG shall be appointed by the monarch 'acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council given in accordance with a decision of the Parliament'. However, the monarch could still refuse to act if the advice was to breach the Constitution - eg to appoint someone who was not qualified or by an unlawful process. The GG's appointment in 2004 and 2010 was held to be invalid because the parliamentary procedure for his nomination was defective.
@constitutionalclarion1901 so then did the queen have to officially say " im Not doing it," or did she do it, and then the government had to handle the political/legal consequences ? on a broader point I think this shows something interesting about the Parilamentry system the monarch can act against unconstitutional actions or reject advice but there expected not to..expect if it's really bad
@@cesargodoy2920 The Queen acted upon the advice but the Supreme Court later found that the advice was unlawful and her act was null and void. (Which is also what the UK Supreme Court did in relation to the Brexit prorogation in the Miller case - it said it was as if the formal document proroguing Parliament was a blank piece of paper.)
Thank you for your videos! Super interesting. Would you consider doing one on the reserve powers of the GG. I’m interested if the understanding and potential application of that has changed…from foundation and particularly did the events of 1975 have a lasting impact on these? Thank you!!
I've written an 850 page book about the reserve powers (The Veiled Sceptre - Cambridge Uni Press). Reducing it to a short video will be a challenge, but I'll put it on the list.
As usual, very interesting. A small point - at about the 17.30 mark, you talk as if the G-G were head of state of Australia. I'd argue that the G-G is not - the monarch is.
Thanks. I agree that the monarch is the head of state, although the GG does in practice exercise many of the head of state's functions. I go into it in detail in another video here: th-cam.com/video/4LMYWY0-VmI/w-d-xo.html.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the reference back to that video.. I can remember watching that before and again found it very interesting. As an aside, re-watching made me wonder again if there were any anti-Semitism in the reluctance to appoint Isaacs as G-G.
@@doubledee9675 It has sometimes been claimed that there was, but it's hard to know. The King seemed more outraged that Isaacs was someone he 'didn't know' personally, and that this connection was being removed. There was also concern that Isaacs had previously been a politician in Australia, so he might have been seen as partisan. While some former vice-regal officers had been British politicians, they did not have the same political connections and friendships within Australia to cause a problem.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Right. Probably the thinking behind the problem in appointing Isaacs was a combination of the various factors mentioned, with different individuals placing their own weight on each.
Scare Campaign, ..the very effective application of deliberately caused ignorance by fear of unknowns. Therefore the real-time problem with democracy is knowing what is genuinely concerning and what can be changed in Principle. Appointments of any description are critical, and ignorance of The Law is, in Actuality, a failure to understand what, how and why inside-outside holographic positioning presence is WYSIWYG. This can be changed, even if it is only a matter of individual bootstrapping self education.
Living in a republic for six decades now , where the PRESIDENT ; HEAD OF STATE; is chosen in a public election I can assure you, that you are better off with an appointed Head of State ! Why so : to get elected the candidates do have to run a campaign, as we all know these campaigns very often get very dirty, the candidates are losing more on reputation than they win .... these campaigns do have to be financed of course, who is funding it ? Always the political parties the candidate belonged to and had offices within...so they all do have a political past and I assure you; no one doesn´t, can´t let decades of political career and colleges behind him and be unpolitical and independent. It is also an illusion that you end up with the person best suited for the job ! For the current president's first term, we had to vote three times and the decision was not about who was the best candidate, but more to avoid the other one. Generally, a President is elected with a majority of 51 to 53 % ; so the other 47 to 49 % do not agree with the decision! AND SO ON! BY APPOINTING A GOVERNOR GENERAL YOU ARE AVOIDING A LOT OF TROUBLE AND POLITICAL SHOW !
GG is by far the best way to keep politics out of the GG that won't happen with a republic president. Example the Senate is supposed to be the States House work for the State. We all know how parties and politics have wormed their way into that Senators now follow parties and no longer represent the State as was the Idea. Remember it is still the State that has authority for that house not the Feds
The question of the appointment of a President is fundamental, but I think less important than the powers. A key difference between the Australian Constitution and British constitution [sic] is that the powers of the Sovereign (and representative thereof) are spelled out explicitly in the Australian Constitution. As written, they give the Governor General extensive powers over both the legislative and executive branches. Those powers are interpreted, at present, through the lense of a constitutional monarchy. That is common law informing the interpretation of statute. However, a statute overrides the common law. If a President did not want to see a bill passed into law, s 58 says that he can withhold assent. If a President decides that he really doesn't like the Prime Minister, s 64 gives him the power to sack the PM. If a President is selected by popular vote, could that President not reason that, holding the mandate of the people, he is empowered to use it as described above? If the Ctrl + F model of constitutional change to a republic (hopefully never) is adopted with the addition of direct election of the President, I don't see this being prevented. I can't see how the High Court could retain an interpretation of the role of the head of state that was contingent on the office being held by someone unelected as applying to an elected office.
This is one of the reasons given against direct election of a head of state. Hence, any direct election system would require either an express limitation of the powers of the head of state or some other mechanism to prevent this kind of abuse of power.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Sorry, just came to this. AIUI, the President of Eire is elected by the people, not by any lower constituent part of the Republic. At the same time, the Eire Constitution provides provides for aa parliamentary system of government, and the President's role is largely ceremonial. The President acts on the advice of the Eire PM (sorry, I can't remember the proper title) much as the monarch (and vice-regals) do .in Australia. I don't know anywhere near enough about the operation of the system to make any real comment, but from the little I do know, it seems to work well.
@@doubledee9675 Yes, I've looked at the Irish system in the past to see if something similar could be adopted in Australia. I even visited the President's official residence and had a meeting there with his Secretary-General, Art O'Leary. There are some crucial differences, however, with the Australia system, so the powers of the head of state in Australia would have to be subject of significant change.
Thanks for the video, super informative and accessible information like this is hard to find. A topic request if I may - the constitutional aspects of the 1975 Labor dismissal by the Governor General. Was is constitutional? What are reserve powers? Etc. This was long before I was alive but I would be interested to learn about a government event that has never happened in history before or again.
That would probably take about 50 Clarion videos to properly address. So much material! I have written a rather long book on the reserve powers which contains all the detail you could ever want. It's called - 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems'. It's published by Cambridge University Press, and while the hardback is quite expensive, the online and paperback versions are more reasonable.
One note about the British role in appointment of Governors General, and Governors that you missed concerns Air Marshal Sir Colin Hannah. AM Hannah was, of course, never Governor General, but he was Governor of Queensland. At the time, he was Australia's longest serving Governor, and would ordinarily have held a dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth. He had made comments while Governor that were critical of the Commonwealth Whitlam Government. Whitlam responded by getting the British Government to revoke his dormant commission. Whitlam's successor, Malcolm Fraser tried to get it reinstated, and the British refused. Queensland's Eternal Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson (PBUH) tried to have Hannah's term as Governor extended, and the British again refused. The British role at the state level ended in 1986 with the Australia Acts.
Thanks. I've only just seen this - there was something wonky with my settings which stopped me seeing quite a few comments. Hopefully now fixed. In any case, I did quite a lot of work on the Hannah case through various archives, and have written about it. See chapters 5 and 13 of my book - 'The Chameleon Crown - The Queen and Her Australian Governors' (Federation Press, 2006).
Ministers get their authority from the Constitution, but there is no mention there of a special Minister with the title of 'Prime Minister'. This role is determined by convention, and that convention was well known to apply at the time the Constitution was written. So the Constitution is based upon the assumption that there is a Prime Minister and that the conventions will apply.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 does this mean a convention now selects the governor general?, if there were no parties who would select the PM?. Did preferential voting favour the top parties?, is preferential voting constitutional ?
@@shellyaus The Governor-General is appointed by the monarch (s 2 of the Constitution) on the advice of the Prime Minister (by convention). The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General on the basis (also a convention) that he or she is the person most likely to command the confidence of the lower House of Parliament. Parties are a useful indicator of where confidence lies, but if parties did not exist, a vote of the lower House would also give that indication. The Constitution allows Parliament to legislate to determine the electoral system - whether it be first past the post, or preferential or proportional or something else. The High Court has accepted that there is a spectrum within which Parliament can enact electoral laws that will be valid, but it would fall off that spectrum and be invalid if it meant that the Houses could not be fairly described as 'directly chosen by the people' (eg if they legislated to choose Parliament by lottery, known as sortition).
@@shellyaus Some help please. Just what do you mean by "by convention". Do you mean a meeting called a convention, which makes the recommendation, or do you mean an accepted means of procedure? I suspect that you mean the former, which is not the sense in which the term is being used here.
@@doubledee9675 300 years ago the convention was to not wear cloths here, now it has changed. It the government has been breaking the law for 100 years, it's OK, it's a convention now
From recollection, it was in letters that I found in the archives. Probably a letter to the Governor-General at the time. Don't have time to look now - too many dodgy bills to deal with. But if I remember later, I'll check.
I checked the reference. While I did get a lot of Lord Stamfordham's correspondence from the Royal Archives, that particular quote is recorded in Harold Nicolson's biography of King George V (Constable & Co, 1952) at p 482. It's a great book, if you haven't read it. You can often pick it up second hand.
That's putting it nicely. 😁The Irish and Scottish arrived in Australia one way or another in substantial numbers with little love for the British Crown or the aristocratic hasbeens foisted on them as GGs.
There was certainly a discussion at one stage (and I can't remember by which PM, off the top of my head) that Prince Charles be made Governor-General, but it did not go ahead. I believe it was scuppered at the Australian end. I'll probably find it in my records somewhere. More amusingly, there was also a suggestion that he be made Governor of Victoria. This was immediately rejected from the Palace end, because it would be insulting to appoint him to an inferior position in Australia!
"NO Republic not needed not required" Not required by whom? You? You may be unaware that there is a substantial body of opinion in Australia that is in favor of an Australian republic. If so, be enlightened. For my part, I would not say that an Australian republic is inevitable; the future is always uncertain. Nevertheless, it does seem that demographic and social trends amongst others are likely to lead to the establishment of a republic in Australia.
Strongly disagree .Its obvious you have'nt been paying attention to tawny .If you have you would DEMAND a republic tommow .It is self evident that the British could'nt let go of their little empire .Demanding that the British govement and British people want a say how their colony "Er " er " their dominion should be govern .You KNOW" too immature to make decision on our own .Mind you they have point look at the politician of these countries ie Canada New Zealand Australia over the years too much of a pussy to tell the British to SOD OFF .and have control in their live and future .look how long the British held to these nation up to the 80"sand 90s Not letting go of their children .And whats discerning these childen of the empire were so grovelling .
Anne, I want to say a huge thank you for your videos on Australian constitutional law. They are all very engaging, even for a non-Australian and relatable due to our shared histories.
You are very welcome. I hope you keep enjoying them - spread the word!
Thank you. I did (as always) learn something interesting!
Very valuable information . I have always wanted more information and knowledge regarding our constitution. Thank you. 🇦🇺🇦🇺
There are lots of videos here for your enjoyment.
Interesting video. God Save the King (and the GG).
Thanks for sharing. You nourish my politcal soul.
You are most welcome.
In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, a GG normally serves roughly 5 years but in the Caribbean, a GG has no such term limit and can serve for as long as they please or as long as they don't fall out of favour with the PM
If I may request a topic I've seen many Tasmanians wonder about the past few weeks - What would happen hypothetically if the Liberals couldn't get any independents to ensure confidence and supply, and Labor stuck to its 'election defeat' and didn't attempt to (or failed to) get enough independents to govern in minority? Would the Greens as the next largest party get a chance to build a deal with one of the Majors and some independents? Is a Green premier possible (hypothetically), given the makeup of the new Tasmanian parliament?
Excellent idea! Will give it a shot.
the consitution of Tuvlau or/and I think Paupa new Gueina does say the Monarch HAS to approve the recommendation
Yes, s 88 of the Constitution of PNG says that the GG shall be appointed by the monarch 'acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council given in accordance with a decision of the Parliament'. However, the monarch could still refuse to act if the advice was to breach the Constitution - eg to appoint someone who was not qualified or by an unlawful process. The GG's appointment in 2004 and 2010 was held to be invalid because the parliamentary procedure for his nomination was defective.
@constitutionalclarion1901
so then did the queen have to officially say " im Not doing it," or did she do it, and then the government had to handle the political/legal consequences ? on a broader point I think this shows something interesting about the Parilamentry system
the monarch can act against unconstitutional actions or reject advice but there expected not to..expect if it's really bad
@@cesargodoy2920 The Queen acted upon the advice but the Supreme Court later found that the advice was unlawful and her act was null and void. (Which is also what the UK Supreme Court did in relation to the Brexit prorogation in the Miller case - it said it was as if the formal document proroguing Parliament was a blank piece of paper.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you for answering my questions !very interesting stuff
Thank you for your videos! Super interesting. Would you consider doing one on the reserve powers of the GG. I’m interested if the understanding and potential application of that has changed…from foundation and particularly did the events of 1975 have a lasting impact on these?
Thank you!!
I've written an 850 page book about the reserve powers (The Veiled Sceptre - Cambridge Uni Press). Reducing it to a short video will be a challenge, but I'll put it on the list.
Senior state governor should be nominated, already been tested on state level.
Senior State Governor is the Lt. Gov. Gen. when the GG is unavailable or overseas.
As usual, very interesting. A small point - at about the 17.30 mark, you talk as if the G-G were head of state of Australia. I'd argue that the G-G is not - the monarch is.
Thanks. I agree that the monarch is the head of state, although the GG does in practice exercise many of the head of state's functions. I go into it in detail in another video here: th-cam.com/video/4LMYWY0-VmI/w-d-xo.html.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the reference back to that video.. I can remember watching that before and again found it very interesting. As an aside, re-watching made me wonder again if there were any anti-Semitism in the reluctance to appoint Isaacs as G-G.
@@doubledee9675 It has sometimes been claimed that there was, but it's hard to know. The King seemed more outraged that Isaacs was someone he 'didn't know' personally, and that this connection was being removed. There was also concern that Isaacs had previously been a politician in Australia, so he might have been seen as partisan. While some former vice-regal officers had been British politicians, they did not have the same political connections and friendships within Australia to cause a problem.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Right. Probably the thinking behind the problem in appointing Isaacs was a combination of the various factors mentioned, with different individuals placing their own weight on each.
Scare Campaign, ..the very effective application of deliberately caused ignorance by fear of unknowns.
Therefore the real-time problem with democracy is knowing what is genuinely concerning and what can be changed in Principle.
Appointments of any description are critical, and ignorance of The Law is, in Actuality, a failure to understand what, how and why inside-outside holographic positioning presence is WYSIWYG. This can be changed, even if it is only a matter of individual bootstrapping self education.
Living in a republic for six decades now , where the PRESIDENT ; HEAD OF STATE; is chosen in a public election I can assure you, that you are better off with an appointed Head of State !
Why so : to get elected the candidates do have to run a campaign, as we all know these campaigns very often get very dirty, the candidates are losing more on reputation than they win ....
these campaigns do have to be financed of course, who is funding it ? Always the political parties the candidate belonged to and had offices within...so they all do have a political past
and I assure you; no one doesn´t, can´t let decades of political career and colleges behind him and be unpolitical and independent. It is also an illusion that you end up with the person
best suited for the job ! For the current president's first term, we had to vote three times and the decision was not about who was the best candidate, but more to avoid the other one.
Generally, a President is elected with a majority of 51 to 53 % ; so the other 47 to 49 % do not agree with the decision! AND SO ON! BY APPOINTING A GOVERNOR GENERAL
YOU ARE AVOIDING A LOT OF TROUBLE AND POLITICAL SHOW !
GG is by far the best way to keep politics out of the GG that won't happen with a republic president.
Example the Senate is supposed to be the States House work for the State. We all know how parties and politics have wormed their way into that Senators now follow parties and no longer represent the State as was the Idea. Remember it is still the State that has authority for that house not the Feds
The question of the appointment of a President is fundamental, but I think less important than the powers. A key difference between the Australian Constitution and British constitution [sic] is that the powers of the Sovereign (and representative thereof) are spelled out explicitly in the Australian Constitution. As written, they give the Governor General extensive powers over both the legislative and executive branches. Those powers are interpreted, at present, through the lense of a constitutional monarchy. That is common law informing the interpretation of statute. However, a statute overrides the common law. If a President did not want to see a bill passed into law, s 58 says that he can withhold assent. If a President decides that he really doesn't like the Prime Minister, s 64 gives him the power to sack the PM.
If a President is selected by popular vote, could that President not reason that, holding the mandate of the people, he is empowered to use it as described above? If the Ctrl + F model of constitutional change to a republic (hopefully never) is adopted with the addition of direct election of the President, I don't see this being prevented. I can't see how the High Court could retain an interpretation of the role of the head of state that was contingent on the office being held by someone unelected as applying to an elected office.
This is one of the reasons given against direct election of a head of state. Hence, any direct election system would require either an express limitation of the powers of the head of state or some other mechanism to prevent this kind of abuse of power.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Sorry, just came to this. AIUI, the President of Eire is elected by the people, not by any lower constituent part of the Republic. At the same time, the Eire Constitution provides provides for aa parliamentary system of government, and the President's role is largely ceremonial. The President acts on the advice of the Eire PM (sorry, I can't remember the proper title) much as the monarch (and vice-regals) do .in Australia. I don't know anywhere near enough about the operation of the system to make any real comment, but from the little I do know, it seems to work well.
@@doubledee9675 Yes, I've looked at the Irish system in the past to see if something similar could be adopted in Australia. I even visited the President's official residence and had a meeting there with his Secretary-General, Art O'Leary.
There are some crucial differences, however, with the Australia system, so the powers of the head of state in Australia would have to be subject of significant change.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for that - a little bit of information to tuck away.
Thanks for the video, super informative and accessible information like this is hard to find. A topic request if I may - the constitutional aspects of the 1975 Labor dismissal by the Governor General. Was is constitutional? What are reserve powers? Etc. This was long before I was alive but I would be interested to learn about a government event that has never happened in history before or again.
That would probably take about 50 Clarion videos to properly address. So much material! I have written a rather long book on the reserve powers which contains all the detail you could ever want. It's called - 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems'. It's published by Cambridge University Press, and while the hardback is quite expensive, the online and paperback versions are more reasonable.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks Anne, I'll take a look!
One note about the British role in appointment of Governors General, and Governors that you missed concerns Air Marshal Sir Colin Hannah. AM Hannah was, of course, never Governor General, but he was Governor of Queensland. At the time, he was Australia's longest serving Governor, and would ordinarily have held a dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth.
He had made comments while Governor that were critical of the Commonwealth Whitlam Government. Whitlam responded by getting the British Government to revoke his dormant commission. Whitlam's successor, Malcolm Fraser tried to get it reinstated, and the British refused. Queensland's Eternal Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson (PBUH) tried to have Hannah's term as Governor extended, and the British again refused.
The British role at the state level ended in 1986 with the Australia Acts.
Thanks. I've only just seen this - there was something wonky with my settings which stopped me seeing quite a few comments. Hopefully now fixed. In any case, I did quite a lot of work on the Hannah case through various archives, and have written about it. See chapters 5 and 13 of my book - 'The Chameleon Crown - The Queen and Her Australian Governors' (Federation Press, 2006).
where did the position of PM get constitutional authority, or is it just a convention ?
Ministers get their authority from the Constitution, but there is no mention there of a special Minister with the title of 'Prime Minister'. This role is determined by convention, and that convention was well known to apply at the time the Constitution was written. So the Constitution is based upon the assumption that there is a Prime Minister and that the conventions will apply.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 does this mean a convention now selects the governor general?, if there were no parties who would select the PM?. Did preferential voting favour the top parties?, is preferential voting constitutional ?
@@shellyaus The Governor-General is appointed by the monarch (s 2 of the Constitution) on the advice of the Prime Minister (by convention). The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General on the basis (also a convention) that he or she is the person most likely to command the confidence of the lower House of Parliament. Parties are a useful indicator of where confidence lies, but if parties did not exist, a vote of the lower House would also give that indication.
The Constitution allows Parliament to legislate to determine the electoral system - whether it be first past the post, or preferential or proportional or something else. The High Court has accepted that there is a spectrum within which Parliament can enact electoral laws that will be valid, but it would fall off that spectrum and be invalid if it meant that the Houses could not be fairly described as 'directly chosen by the people' (eg if they legislated to choose Parliament by lottery, known as sortition).
@@shellyaus Some help please. Just what do you mean by "by convention". Do you mean a meeting called a convention, which makes the recommendation, or do you mean an accepted means of procedure? I suspect that you mean the former, which is not the sense in which the term is being used here.
@@doubledee9675 300 years ago the convention was to not wear cloths here, now it has changed. It the government has been breaking the law for 100 years, it's OK, it's a convention now
Does anyone know where stamfordham comments about communists and the irish can be found?
From recollection, it was in letters that I found in the archives. Probably a letter to the Governor-General at the time. Don't have time to look now - too many dodgy bills to deal with. But if I remember later, I'll check.
Thanks, I’ll look for it in the royal archives website.
I checked the reference. While I did get a lot of Lord Stamfordham's correspondence from the Royal Archives, that particular quote is recorded in Harold Nicolson's biography of King George V (Constable & Co, 1952) at p 482. It's a great book, if you haven't read it. You can often pick it up second hand.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for letting me know, it’s just shocking to me that a monarch’s private secretary would say those weird things.
The early preponderance of British Governors General shows a vestigial attachment to the apron strings of Old Albion and Australia's cultural cringe.
Australians saw themselves as intrinsically British and the GG was seen as a symbol of this.
That's putting it nicely. 😁The Irish and Scottish arrived in Australia one way or another in substantial numbers with little love for the British Crown or the aristocratic hasbeens foisted on them as GGs.
OOdy dah dah very posh way of expressing your view. I don't disagree . I wish I could it put as well as you .
So it was all right to appoint his buddy but not all right if he was involved in politics and might be biased.
I understood that PM Fraser actually suggested then Prince Charles be given the position.... true?
There was certainly a discussion at one stage (and I can't remember by which PM, off the top of my head) that Prince Charles be made Governor-General, but it did not go ahead. I believe it was scuppered at the Australian end. I'll probably find it in my records somewhere.
More amusingly, there was also a suggestion that he be made Governor of Victoria. This was immediately rejected from the Palace end, because it would be insulting to appoint him to an inferior position in Australia!
Excellent explanation however please NO Republic not needed not required
"NO Republic not needed not required" Not required by whom? You? You may be unaware that there is a substantial body of opinion in Australia that is in favor of an Australian republic. If so, be enlightened. For my part, I would not say that an Australian republic is inevitable; the future is always uncertain. Nevertheless, it does seem that demographic and social trends amongst others are likely to lead to the establishment of a republic in Australia.
Strongly disagree .Its obvious you have'nt been paying attention to tawny .If you have you would DEMAND a republic tommow .It is self evident that the British could'nt let go of their little empire .Demanding that the British govement and British people want a say how their colony "Er " er " their dominion should be govern .You KNOW" too immature to make decision on our own .Mind you they have point look at the politician of these countries ie Canada New Zealand Australia over the years too much of a pussy to tell the British to SOD OFF .and have control in their live and future .look how long the British held to these nation up to the 80"sand 90s Not letting go of their children .And whats discerning these childen of the empire were so grovelling .