Every time I've heard the term AU (alternate universe) I've always said to myself "what if they mean the fanfic takes place in Australia". Thank you for creating a situation where both interpretations work great 👍
2:41 Technically speaking, Charles could just keep living in the UK as citizen Charles Windsor in one of his privately-owned estates like Balmoral and Sndringham
This is the most likely scenario should these events ever occur, although presumably he would keep his titles, including that of King, like other deposed European monarchs.
@@Henry-vs6wmyeah maybe we could separate the state into two institutions the Republic which would be the government and the Royal Family who would essentially be rich celebrities recognised by the government as the 'King' or 'Queen' or 'Prince' but they would have no role in government
In Canada, the real title is King of Canada or Queen of Canada. I believe that Australia should tweak the Constitution for clarity in case of UK becoming a republic.
Honestly, knowing how difficult it is to get anything passed in Aus, unless for some reason that thing is an undercooked social media ban, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the UK actually made a move before us!
Most of the descendants of Queen Victoria, including the current royal line descended from Edward VII, have not inherited haemophilia because it is an X-linked recessive condition and therefore can only be passed down the female line or to daughters of males with haemophilia. Because Edward VII did not have Haemophilia, it has not been passed down his royal line, so the throne is not linked to a genetic risk of haemophilia.
@@neilforbes416 Replacing "you don't need to be a descendant of Queen Victoria" with "you don't need to have 23andme say you have the risk of hemophilia"
I can't see Australians accepting a head of state chosen by an election that only Brits and not Australians can take part in, it wouldn't take long for Australia to become its own republic in that case
You ∴ I also am sure KNOW the (British) Commonwealth does NOT exist in reality - in fact, there is literally no benefit to Australia picking up a significant amount of the tab. For example, Canada - the 2nd biggest contributor - refused to pay up because Sri Lanka (Colombo) hosted the 2013 Summit. Anyway, the concept of “Shared Citizenship”, i.e. when individuals of member countries could use their national membership status for emigration to the UK - had disappeared by E. “Ted” R. G. Heath’s time (“Britain’s future is in Europe” - J. Harold Wilson). Furthermore, the UK is an economic rival of Australia in myriad ways, especially since the disintegration of the British Empire & the British Isles’ propinquity to Continental Europe (January 1973) as I mentioned earlier. The UK is not even one of Australia’s top five trading partners - even Singapore does more business with Australia than the UK.
It's weird how Australia wouldn't accept someone as head of state because they were elected by someone else (despite the fact that there are many places that do that, like Puerto Rico, which has to follow US laws, but doesn't get to vote on them), yet Australia would accept someone from outside Australia as head of state purely based on who their parent was.
@@greywolf7577 puerto rico isnt comparable to the uk and aussie relationship like at all. We are not part of the UK, puerto rico is not a sovreign state, now should it be i am not here to discuss be we know it isn't at the moment. Australia has its own laws, government, army etc etc. Its like crotia changing its head of state because of a vote in slovenia. it makes no sense.
Australia has its own laws for determining who is king, so his abdication as king of the UK would not affect his position as king of Australia. While the current succession laws are identical in the two countries, an abdication in the UK would mean the laws were different. It would be similar to when Victoria succeeded William IV as Queen of the UK but not Hanover, because under its succession laws, only men could inherit the crown.
I'm looking forward to the Constitutional Clarion doing a video on this and our Succession Laws. If, as you say, they're the same, I don't think it makes a difference to the scenario posed in this video.
@@saimoncoleAlthough the laws are currently the same, the videos asks about the scenario of an abdication. Since the abdication would be an act of Westminster, it would have no force in Australia. New Zealand is the only other Commonwealth country that has its own succession laws. In every other Commonwealth realm, the sovereign of the UK is recognized as their sovereign.
@@nickd4310 That's right. I'm not sure Succession Act here would be relevant to the King's abdication in the UK. He'd continue as King here. Only when he dies does our Succession Act govern who succeeds him.
@saimoncole That was my point. An abdication act in Westminster would not have legal force in Australia. It would require an Australian law for Charles to abdicate as king of Australia. Similarly, if he abdicated as king of Australia, he would remain king of the UK. Charles' claim to the throne of Australia is the succession laws that became Australian law in 1986 and were copied from British laws. As intended, they made the same man the king in both countries but either country could change them, possibly resulting in different people ruling in the two countries.
you're extremely underrated. just came across you, loving it so far, your sense of humour is utterly fantastic, never did I see myself watching fanfics about the australian constitution
Glad to have found you. I am an Aussie who has been in China for 28 years and am trying to re-educate myself as i transition back to Australia. Let me know if there are other channels like this one. ChatGPT recommended this channel and i am happy to be here. Seems like a worthwhile channel to follow - fun and informative.
My thoughts are that I assume that if the UK became a republic Charles (or whomever is occupying it at the time) will sign papers abdicating the throne, and at the same time those papers would include the Commonwealth countries. I think we would have to have a referendum prior to that if we wanted to keep the monarchy in the event of the UK becoming a republic.
The Vice-Regal residence in Canada is called "Rideau Hall" and indeed "Rideau Hall" is used fairly frequently in the Canadian media as a shorthand to refer to the office of the Governor General in the same way that "Buckingham Palace" is used in the UK, e.g. "The newest inductees into the Order of Canada were announced in a statement released today by Rideau Hall."
if UK decided to become a Republic, the country need to change it's named from United Kingdom to the United Republic or UR. since a Kingdom is associated with Monarchism and the authority of Kingships. and the official titles would be The President of the United Republic.
I imagine if the UK became a republic, independence for the countries within the UK would be shortly round the corner, so I imagine we'd drop the 'United' as well
@@sheffieldsam6212: This comment from ≈ two years ago is ∴ worth perusing vis-à-vis what you wrote: “Daisy Blue 1 DAY AGO In the UK the monarchy will never die, no matter how much the Republican movement try to intervene. They basically own the place. But, the commonwealth countries like Australia will eventually pull away and hopefully it’s not too far away from happening. Many people in Scotland want out and Ireland may join back as one nation and Wales is talking about leaving too. King Charles and Camilla are old, William and Kate are bland, Harry has left, Andrew is no longer welcome, Edward hasn’t been seen for thirty years until Harrys departure and Anne’s best days are behind her. As they say, long live the King with his medieval traditions that no longer fit the twenty first century here in Australia.” [Ends]
@@DarthMalgusSith_Lord Technically the UKs full formal name is “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. I’d imagine they’d place more emphasis on Great Britain and Northern Ireland part.
The British absolutely did "physically divide the monarch into several different pieces" (well, two pieces) just like the French. Both countries also had a restoration of the monarchy, but it didn't stick in France.
Britain didn't do that, sovereignty is vested entirely in the Monarch. What Britain DID slowly do over time was create a divide between Sovereignty and day-to-day executive power. The King can still technically dismiss parliament whenever he wants and issue decrees, it's just that since the Civil War the Monarchs have been well aware that they have to work with both Parliament and the Army (which were basically the same thing for a long time) to avoid getting overthrown. It's not illegal for the King to be political, even aggressively so, just taboo. It's extremely difficult to compare Britain and the Dominions to American or French-derived democracies because even when they have apparent congruencies with eachother, the real way power and sovereignty are defined is fundamentally completely different.
@@rocksandforestquiver959 You've completely misunderstood my comment. The British physically divided Charles I just like the French did to Louis XVI (they cut their heads off).
Not sure if the king could just "Abolish the Governor General". Section 2 of the Constitution enshrines the office of the Governor General. Whilst it could be argued by virtue of s7 part 4 that His Majesty could exercise his powers when physically being in a state, I am not sure there exist similar provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution. Maybe one could argue that the King could technically appoint himself as the Governor General. I guess he would be wearing not only the many crowns that you mentioned but also several hats.
You may be right in that it might not be a simple process, but I would point out that section 2 says that the Governor-General "may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure" which to me reads as the existence of the Governor-General is not guaranteed, just that this is the constitutional and legal basis for the monarch to choose a representative and then give them powers (or limit their power) through letters patent. The office is dependent on the monarch choosing a representative - but doesn't need one in this scenario. All hypothetical, of course.
@ indeed, a very unlikely scenario, with a lot of legal maybes. I would point out, however, that as the Irish learned during the 1936 abdication crisis, that the role of the Governor General is not so easily extinguished.
I agree with you. WHilst the Constitution places all executive power in the King, that power can only be exercised by a Governor General. The King's power is limited to the ability to withdraw assent from a Bill and appoint the Governor General.
When the King is present in Australia, the GG stands aside. If the UK became a republic, the King could come out here and things would continue as usual, but I'm not sure for how long. Public opinion and convention would compel us to hold a referendum and update the constitution.
The King and Royal Family could relocate to Australia and become official Australians and then Australia would FINALLY have our OWN Head of State and be fully Sovereign. That would be preferable to still being under Britain's Crown 😅
“Power of imagination“ and “constitutional law” in the same sentence. 😍 The TH-cam algorithm put this video onto my Home Screen this morning. One of my “roads not travelled” is constitutional law (yes really.) I’m so happy to discover your channel.
I’m in favour of reinterpretation where nothing changes besides renaming the governor general to regent and pretending they’re keeping the throne warm for someone
The 1953 Novel "In the Wet" by Neville Shute set in a futuristic Australia in the year 1983, imagined Queen Elizabeth II fleeing a troubled Britian with a republican leaning government to live in Australia. In her stead she has appointed a Governor-General of Great Britian to act on her behalf. "The Queen announces this on her Christmas broadcast, and makes it clear that she and her family will not return to Britain without the country having undergone political reforms, meaning both the multiple vote, and the installation of a Governor General for the United Kingdom as a necessary buffer between Monarch and Parliament, whose behaviour and treatment of the Queen has become both a constitutional and personal affront prior to this declaration." Until vote reforms in the late 19th Century Britian had plural voting, something largely alien to today's concept of "one man, one vote". Interestingly, Shute has imagined a Britian where people can earn or be awarded up to 7 votes. "Perhaps the most interesting (and enduring) feature of the book is the "multiple vote", seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to David Anderson for his heroism, is only given at the Queen's discretion by Royal Charter.'
This was a fantastic video David. Thank you. I like the idea of Charlie moving to Jamaica and Australia being subject to the King of Jamaica. We might chill out a bit and legalise pot
I would guess if the King moved to a realm the GG would essentially become a paperwork role important in name but basically just a staffer for the king sorta like the Lord Chamberlain in the UK.The King would do all the actual stuff
The GG only carries out duties in the name of the monarch in case of their absence so yeah I mean theoretically with the King permanently resident the GG would basically be the... Vice-King?😂
strictly speaking England has already been a republic in the 1650s when they executed charles 1st and Oliver cromwell became the lord protector. with those lovely puritans running around making life miserable for everybody. also they tried it earlier and set up a sort of pseudo republic under simon de montfort which lasted until edward 1st beat him in the barons wars. so republics aren't exactly new to England.
Also, during that time, America, I believe, actually remained loyal to the crown. Yes. Americans. You used to be more loyal to the British monarchy... Then the... English, Scottish, and Irish (At the time they were separate crowns, sorry Wales.)
As an American who doesn’t know a ton about the Australian constitution and laws this is very interesting! I do have a question; what would things look like if there was a separate King/Queen of Australia? Like, Charles or whoever still in the UK, someone else entirely in Australia. Would it be possible, how would such a monarch be decided, what would things look like/would there be any benefits to having an Australian only monarch? Very much appreciate and enjoy your videos!
It'd work. The change would likely require a referendum to choose a new royal line, or the agreement of all Commonwealth Realms to alter the legislation on line of succession so a new person could inherit. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be a simple decision of parliament.
funny bit, I was heading into the comments to mention the andorra example and say your theory wasn't as bad as you thought it was … and exactly then you mentioned it 😅
I'm in Canada and think it's quite possible the UK will do it before us. The amending formula to get rid of the monarchy here is damn near impossible to meet constitutionally here.
It's always been my belief that because Australia is it's own constitutional monarchy, and that constitutional monarchy isn't strictly speaking linked to the UK government in any legal sense, so if the UK became a republic then the Monarch of Australia would simply remain the same - regardless of anything the UK does. Australia (and other commonwealth dominions) would need to negotiate it's own republic in order to break with said monarch.
Hey David, love your videos, I’m here to ask a question! What would happen if a majority government won the House of Reps by a tiny margin-say, 76-75-and then two sitting MPs from the government side became unavailable (e.g., resign, pass away, or are disqualified), flipping the numbers to 74-75? I know the two vacant seats wouldn’t stay unoccupied for long, but for argument’s sake, let’s say they are. Would the opposition automatically form government, or would there be a different process to resolve the situation? Would the Governor-General get involved? Love to hear your take on this hypothetical - fun and not serious :)
If the government loses its majority due to seats becoming vacant it can request the Governor-General prorogue parliament until after the by-elections resolve if the government can regain its majority. If those seats get won by the opposition then there are two options. First is the government calls for a general election and resolves the issue. If an election isn't called then the second optiom is the opposition has the numbers to pass a motion of no confidence and demonstrate they have the numbers to govern, so the government would resign and the Governor-General would appoint the Leader of the Opposition to PM.
@@AuspolExplainedIn that by-election, those seats would be up for grab right? And if the opposition suddenly won those seats - forming majority, would they call for a vote of no confidence? If passed, parliament would either resign the current PM and transfer power, if you will, to the new majority party leader without need for a general election - or would the (no longer confident majority) PM push for a new general election?
As a monarchist, I'd probably end up moving to Australia or Canada if this happened. I doubt we will see if the monarchy does get abolished (They do genuinely make Britain more money than they take [They take like 300ish mil and they give 400ish mil], and I don't think they cost the Commonwealth realms anything unless they arrive in which costs are covered by that realm) at least in Britain.
If till 1986 all Australians were subjects to the Queen of Australia in regards the Commonwealth but subject of the Queen of the UK in regards to the states. Also given the High Court has said that dual UK and Australian citizen cannot sit in Federal parliament. Does that make all members of parliament till 1986 ineligible as British subject ie foreign subjects??
All Australians were British subjects until 1984, the was no distinction between the state and federal level. When the crown became divisible and the Queen of Australia was evolved as a seperate position, all this really did was mean that when exercising her federal Australians powers she would act on the advice of Australian (Federal) Minister. Rather than British Ministers as had been the case prior. Also British subjecthood was an indicator you were a citizen of the Empire (which then became Commonwealth) rather than a citizen of the UK (which is a seperate category). In any case the UK for a large part of Australia’s history wasn’t a foreign power, it is only with the severing of the final links in 1986 did the UK become a foreign power.
@@JamesVCTH Actually, the Queen acted on the advice of Australian ministers long before the position of Queen of Australia was created. Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia's first GG under Ben Chifley was appointed on Chifley's advice and King George resented being told he had no option, but eventually caved in.
@@saimoncole The crown (at the commonwealth level) became divisible around 1926-1930. Around the same time Issacs was appointed. The evolution of the Queen of Australia as a seperate position predates officially giving her that title (which didn’t happen until 1953).
I wouldn’t worry too much. There is no constitutional mechanism for the UK to abolish of the monarchy at all. In the UK (I don’t know about in Commonwealth realms) parliament cannot even discuss any matter relating to the King, or his powers or even anything that might affect his affairs without the consent of the crown. The convention here is that the monarchy is not ever discussed in parliament, ever. The speaker will name the MP and have them removed from the house for even mentioning the King or any other HRH. The monarchy is deeply intertwined with every institution of the state here. The courts, the military, the government and to this day the church. If anyone thought Brexit was tedious, imagine the mess of untangling a thousand years of monarchy. It would cause endless grief, and would be stuck in the courts and be debated on in parliament for the next thousand years if we had to pick it all apart. I truly believe as many others do that only revolution could bring the monarchy down in the UK. I think Australia could drop the crown one day and perhaps Canada will follow, but the UK couldn’t if it wanted to, not peacefully.
The French president as Prince of Andorra works because the princeship is held _ex officio_ by the French head of state, which passed from the monarch to the president. The same is not the case for King Charles, who is King of Australia in his own right according to the Australian laws of succession, which are unconnected to British law apart from the principle that they shouldn't (but still could) be altered independently of the other regal states. Option #2 is definitely a farce.
On your scenario 2 you are using the covering clauses, however the covering clauses are not a part of the constitution itself, they are a part of the British Act that established the Constitution which is clause 9 of that Act. The Monarchy (and I'm sure you are aware of this based on what you said) has been legally split from the UK Monarchy. We have our own succession laws and the UK can't change them. If the UK became a Monarchy, Charles and his heirs and successors according to Australian Law remain as Monarchs. The UK president would have no role in governing Australia. The biggest anomaly (perhaps the only one) is that Parliamentarians would still need to swear allegiance to the King of the UK which may be difficult if that title no longer exists, although technically the Constitution says the King of Great Britain and Ireland and that office no longer exists either.
You mean "if the UK became a Republic," and yes Charles (and his heirs and successors) according to Australian law would remain as Monarch of Australia. Some constitutional changes would need to be made (for example to the oath of allegiance). The Constitution makes no mention of a King of Great Britain and Ireland. We would need a referendum to update our constitution given the new circumstances and the choices could include replacing the Governor General with an elected Head of State or with King Charles (if we want it and it would probably entail him and family agreeing to migrate to Australia) or with an Australian with legitimate ties to the English throne like the Earl of Loudoun, Simon Abney-Hastings. (search 'equanimity australian constitutional monarchy')
@ It mentions the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland in the footnote to the schedule containing the Parliamentarians oath. "(NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)" I'm not a Laywer (let alone a constitutional one) and I'm not sure if the note merely provides guidance or is a fundamental part of the Constitution.
i'm sorry to hear you got kicked out of the cafe its funny to me that there have been points where the UK is closer to abolishing it than we are also i think at least canada if not a few others are higher on the list than australia
Canada is about the farthest away from it. To abolish the monarchy in Canada would effectively require unanimity amount the entire population to do so with the way the constitution is structured. Not to mention that no one has really any strong negative feelings towards the monarchy as an institution.
Since the constitution specifically says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" If all of Ireland were to unify, would that have any impact on the constitution? Would we need to amend it to remove Ireland or if the Irish were like "We're gonna have our own monarch for Ireland" they'd be able to claim some sort of legitimacy in Australia?
While im not a australian constitutional scholar, i am pretty sure that the desvription of "descendants of queen victoria" is intenteded to be literal because that is how claims to the throne work. Becausr australia has an amendme t process (whatever that is) it is clearly intendended to go thru that process if something needs to be changed.
I think the second option is perfectly legitimate and actually quite likely. There is also a third option: The UK finds a solution under which the king _of_ England becomes the king _in_ England, who gets certain privileges under the new constitution (or more likely, as we are talking about the UK: as part of the new amendments to the old constitution). In particular, the king _in_ England gets diplomatic immunity similar to an ambassador, but also the absolute right to remain in the UK. So unlike an ambassador he cannot even be expelled if he commits a crime. Then as countries gradually get rid of the king, sooner or later there will be a king _in_ England who is not in fact a king of any country, but even in the best case scenario it will take a few more centuries until the UK abolishes this ridiculous title.
Does the fact that the UK has changed name and territory since the Australian constitution was written have any relevance? The history of Andorra is fascinating, and I was thinking of it before you mentioned it.
No. It's the same as the monarch is no longer Queen Victoria. The historical nomenclature is interpreted generically... If the UK became a republic, Charles would still be the King of Australia.
The monarch doesn't need to move. They own property all over Britain. In Australia the crown owns Admiralty house in Sydney. They could simply operate as King remotely from Britain. They also get an incredible amount of money from the crown estates. Currently this goes through the British government. If Britain abolished the monarchy where they are, this money would then go directly to the crown. The monarch governs Australia within the boundaries of the Australian monarchy. The king could be part of any role in the future of Britain, but within Australia he would still be the King. Nothing that happens in Britain has any effect on the other realms.
As you said, the interpretation to consider the president of the uk to be our monarch would be a little silly, but I'd add it would likely be very unpopular interpretation given one argument often raised against Australia becoming a republic is the concern that electing a head of state could end up going down the same extremes as the usa. This scenario not only has a popularly elected head of state, but one who was voted in by not Australians. So the high court when it would inevitably be involved in testing the legitimacy of that interpretation would be facing both literalist and unpalitability concerns.
Nothing. As Charles III is independently King of Australia he would continue to be so even after the UK inexplicably becomes a republic. He would probably move to Australia or another Commonwealth realm though and “rule” directly instead of a Governor-General.
I'm not sure he could, as the Constitution explicitly states that the Executive powers of the Monarch can only be exercised by a Governor General. The King would retain a minimal role in legislation (the ability to withdraw Royal Assent under S59).
@@almango873 When the King is in Australia, the GG steps aside and the King acts for himself. However, if this became a permanent situation, there would need to be a referendum to formalize it (and abolish the GG's position probably).
@ I'm not sure that Queen Elizabeth or King Charles ever performed Executive Govt constitutional duties whilst in Australia. I know that the Queen did perform some Parliamentary duties that were either not mentioned in the Constitution (she opened Parliament on one or more occasions) and she gave assent to the Australia Acts (maybe more than this). I don't think Charles did anything other than visit us but I could be wrong. I think under our current Constitution it would be Charles who has nothing much to do Governmental wise if he lived here.
I've never liked the idea of the UK having a president, mainly because when doctor who visited a parralel universe UK where we had a president, the country ended up being overthrown by cybermen.
You say it's ridiculous and unlikely, but that underestimates the power of political gridlock. Sure this wouldn't happen intentionally, but the idea aussies could still be arguing over how to choose their head of state, when the UK becomes a republic is not beyond the realm of possibility.
This question is more plausible than you think. Labour over here have abolished the last remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords. It's remote but not inconceivable for their coup de grâce to be the abolition of the greatest hereditary lord of them all.
Section 4 crimes against the Crown "Any act causing government, law, constitution, sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt." So those four things require everyones consent or we hold them in hatred and contempt,
The point of Au having a monarchy is that the head of state is powerless, irrelevant, and _a long way away._ If he moved in to Kirribilli and started taking an interest in how we run the country, he wouldn't be a useful defence against presidency, he'd be just the same as a president - too powerful and too here. If the UK goes republic, we could probably borrow Denmark's monarch. They would also be powerless, irrelevant, and a long way away, with the bonus of actually being part Australian, while having that gorgeous accent. But anything that protects us from having a president like the US system is good by me. Also, we should make the governor general an Indigenous elder, chosen by a council of Indigenous elders. It's a ceremonial role rather than having actual power, but the prime minister has to speak to the GG regularly, and the GG is the representative of sovereignty - so they really should be Indigenous.
Auspol Explained: "Go and have a look at these other two videos I spent a lot of time on putting forward the points of remaining a constitutional monarchy and becoming a republic." Me: "Nah, I'm just going to give you my opinion here and now without watching those other videos." SO! I was a constitutional monarchist (not a member of the league, just a personal opinion) for a very long time. My argument was "why change? What do we gain? Realistically we just have an additional elected position and have to give the new 'executive' branch of government a role, what stays parliamentary and what become executive? This would be a long, messy and drawn out process that no one will be happy with and would likely be open to varying levels of political shit-fuckery (technical Australian term for when politicians abuse their power for their own political gain in case any foreigner are watching) with the division of powers." Fast forward a few years and I've come around to a more nuance position of, yes, let's look at becoming a republic but for a reason. What's our reason for becoming a republic? Is it flag change? You know you can just change the flag without a republic referendum right? What structural constitutional issue do we need to address with a constitutional overhaul and a referendum? I had thought that indigenous recognition issues would be the big change we could address. Then the voice referendum failed. Sad. So my current position is, "Republic? Yes, but only for a good reason." - Rebrand from monarch to local executive, not a good reason because we have that effectively under the current set up with the governor general for all intents and purposes. Realistically, no modern monarch is going to go against their local ministers recommendations, or by convention to date no modern monarch has gone against their local ministers and Australia has been "self governing" for all intents and purposed. A change to the practice would likely lead to a "good reason" which would be the monarchy no longer being A-political and Australia is no longer "self-governing". I'm going to go watch the videos now and see if my opinions change based on the arguments put forward. Thank you for producing this content.
It would, indeed, be far easier for the UK to become a republic than for Canada. The monarchy is deeply entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, such that abolishing the Canadian Crown would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces as well as of the federal Parliament. In the UK, all that would be required would be a simple act of Parliament, as was the case in Barbados when it became a republic.
When Australia does become a Republic, because monarchy, even the more tokenism they kind of all are is archaic and kind of pointless. But obviously becoming a Republic would mean there would be a lot of changes to the Australian constitution, but I think it would be a good move forward.
I think both of your scenarios are plausible. The first certainly feels more likely. But the second would be the only reasonable interpretation if the royal family decided to dissolve themselves as an entity upon the UK becoming a Republic.
We could start dealing with the GG in the Constitution piece by piece, For example in Section 68 the Commander in Chief could be changed to whoever is the Chief of Joint Capabilities is. Could the King of UK (as the Commander in Chief) stop Australia defending itself? It has already ordered Australians to surrender which led to the fall of Singapore.
I think you're confusing our system with the USA. We don't have Commander in Chief as such in the Executive branch. The King has no real power in Australia.
It allowed Australian states to repeal UK legislation that affected them, but the states have chosen to preserve some imperial legislation. They're free to repeal anything from the past though.
Next Video what if France or Germany join Commonwealth Realms and King Charles The 3rd Head of State of France and Co-princes of Andorra and Head of State for Germany Technically House of Windsor was a German Royal House Former Name is House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Countries can join Commonwealth Realms Especially in Europe Which Famous Royal Family Come From ?
The King of Australia can't fire the Governor-General of Australia since the Governor-General is a creature of the Australian constitution. Oh & by the way us 🇬🇧 won't be abolishing our monarchy anytime soon. Unlike the Australian constitution, the 🇬🇧 crown is of us directly, regardless of our heritage, out of time & mind.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and IRELAND ceased to exist in 1921 with the creation of the Irish Free State... soooo.... could it be said that because a nation with that name no longer exists, Australia doesn't have to follow that part of the constitution?
I fail to understand why we haven't become a republic & cast off Britain as our colonial authority. The last referendum was a majority vote to stay under UK rule. WHY??? I wonder how much of Australian taxpayers money gets paid to the UK for the privilege of being part of the British Commonwealth? Remaining a British colony seems so archaic.
"Australia does not fund the King or wider royal family for any activities taken outside of Australia, either towards personal income or to support royal residences outside of Australia. When monarch visits Australia, their expenses are paid for by the Australian Government." - From Wikipedia "The simple answer is No. Australia does not pay a cent for maintenance or security of the Sovereign." - From the Australian Nationhood Foundation "Australia does not pay a cent for maintenance or security of the Sovereign." - Australian Monarchist League Dumn dumb, nice try at the rage baiting.
Yes, this is why there are SIX (6) classes of British nationality to this day, which critics accuse of being a form of “citizenship apartheid”. You ∴ I also am sure KNOW the (British) Commonwealth does NOT exist in reality - in fact, there is literally no benefit to Australia picking up a significant amount of the tab. For example, Canada - the 2nd biggest contributor - refused to pay up because Sri Lanka (Colombo) hosted the 2013 Summit. Anyway, the concept of “Shared Citizenship”, i.e. when individuals of member countries could use their national membership status for emigration to the UK - had disappeared by E. “Ted” R. G. Heath’s time (“Britain’s future is in Europe” - J. Harold Wilson). Furthermore, the UK is an economic rival of Australia in myriad ways, especially since the disintegration of the British Empire & the British Isles’ propinquity to Continental Europe (January 1973) as I mentioned earlier. The UK is not even one of Australia’s top five trading partners - even Singapore does more business with Australia than the UK.
A scenario in which this weird idea might happen would be if monarch were caught red-handed interfering in UK politics on behalf of the Tories (or other Right wing party) and other members of the family firm were implicated. A Left side UK government might be able to push for abolition, but a Right side AU government might prefer to keep the meddling monarch. I doubt in the circumstnces the ermine vermin would be persuaded to take up a new, reduced role in the sun though. Far easier to just all retire with their money.
Stuff it, let’s just pull a fast one and fully separate from the commonwealth without becoming a republic. Then elect our own Aussie monarchy, go super industrial and nationalistic, only let in high value migrants from the most high value developed nations, and fully invest in improving Australia internally and trying to coax commonwealth and small Asia-pacific countries into joining us to form an imperial federation. Then we can crack a funny and try to form a more centralised and ambitious commonwealth descended imperial federation without Britain, and have a main talking pound be the goal to surpass the British isles and become the true successors to the empire in culture, influence, advancement, but also exceeding by actually making the imperial federation concept into reality.
If we British types were to dispose of the monarchy in an orderly fashion, I could see the Crown persisting as an abstract entity seperate from any specific individual, with the elected Head of State holding delegated Crown authority in legislatively defined circumstances, as this would create the least problem when it comes to the likes of legal precedent.
Indeed, Parliament theoretically could have a system whereas the king is chosen by them, and then remove the monarch every few years, but have this be an automatic application. Apart from renaming the office there's not too much to actually change. Parliament already has the legal right to appoint regents and designate heirs.
@@calum5975 I was thinking more along the lines of an elected figurehead president, like Ireland, but with their powers defined in terms such as 'can exercise the Crown's power to dissolve Parliament, when requested to do so by the Prime Minister'.
Your second scenario isn’t the craziest idea. Some years before Elizabeth II’s death, some Canadian pundits suggested we could get rid of our monarchy by simply declining to recognize a successor and leaving her as Queen.
@@martychisnall "Although some thought it should have been presented as a gift to Queen Victoria by the East India Company, it is clear that Dalhousie believed the stone was a spoil of war, and treated it accordingly, ensuring that it was officially surrendered to her by Duleep Singh, the youngest son of Ranjit Singh.[48] The presentation of the Koh-i-Noor by the East India Company to the queen was the latest in a long history of transfers of the diamond as a coveted spoil of war.[49] Duleep Singh had been placed in the guardianship of Dr John Spencer Login, a surgeon in the East India Company Army serving in the Presidency of Bengal. Duleep Singh moved to England in 1854 and spent the rest of his life in exile" -Wikipedia. Do you have any sources that truly claim the maharaj willingly gave the diamond?
Every time I've heard the term AU (alternate universe) I've always said to myself "what if they mean the fanfic takes place in Australia". Thank you for creating a situation where both interpretations work great 👍
😂 i love it
Perfect!
2:41 Technically speaking, Charles could just keep living in the UK as citizen Charles Windsor in one of his privately-owned estates like Balmoral and Sndringham
This is the most likely scenario should these events ever occur, although presumably he would keep his titles, including that of King, like other deposed European monarchs.
@@Henry-vs6wmyeah maybe we could separate the state into two institutions the Republic which would be the government and the Royal Family who would essentially be rich celebrities recognised by the government as the 'King' or 'Queen' or 'Prince' but they would have no role in government
Buckingham Palace becomes an interesting point, because it's owned by a dead guy
@alinaqirizvi1441how is that any different in practice than what the uk has now?
He could change his name to Battenberg-Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha since it wouldn't matter anymore.
“King of Australia” becomes much more literal haha
In Canada, the real title is King of Canada or Queen of Canada. I believe that Australia should tweak the Constitution for clarity in case of UK becoming a republic.
Honestly, knowing how difficult it is to get anything passed in Aus, unless for some reason that thing is an undercooked social media ban, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the UK actually made a move before us!
Most of the descendants of Queen Victoria, including the current royal line descended from Edward VII, have not inherited haemophilia because it is an X-linked recessive condition and therefore can only be passed down the female line or to daughters of males with haemophilia. Because Edward VII did not have Haemophilia, it has not been passed down his royal line, so the throne is not linked to a genetic risk of haemophilia.
That's good to know even though it ruins my joke
@@AuspolExplained And what was the joke?
@@neilforbes416 Replacing "you don't need to be a descendant of Queen Victoria" with "you don't need to have 23andme say you have the risk of hemophilia"
I can't see Australians accepting a head of state chosen by an election that only Brits and not Australians can take part in, it wouldn't take long for Australia to become its own republic in that case
You ∴ I also am sure KNOW the (British) Commonwealth does NOT exist in reality - in fact, there is literally no benefit to Australia picking up a significant amount of the tab.
For example, Canada - the 2nd biggest contributor - refused to pay up because Sri Lanka (Colombo) hosted the 2013 Summit.
Anyway, the concept of “Shared Citizenship”, i.e. when individuals of member countries could use their national membership status for emigration to the UK - had disappeared by E. “Ted” R. G. Heath’s time (“Britain’s future is in Europe” - J. Harold Wilson).
Furthermore, the UK is an economic rival of Australia in myriad ways, especially since the disintegration of the British Empire & the British Isles’ propinquity to Continental Europe (January 1973) as I mentioned earlier.
The UK is not even one of Australia’s top five trading partners - even Singapore does more business with Australia than the UK.
It's weird how Australia wouldn't accept someone as head of state because they were elected by someone else (despite the fact that there are many places that do that, like Puerto Rico, which has to follow US laws, but doesn't get to vote on them), yet Australia would accept someone from outside Australia as head of state purely based on who their parent was.
@@greywolf7577 puerto rico isnt comparable to the uk and aussie relationship like at all. We are not part of the UK, puerto rico is not a sovreign state, now should it be i am not here to discuss be we know it isn't at the moment. Australia has its own laws, government, army etc etc. Its like crotia changing its head of state because of a vote in slovenia. it makes no sense.
Australia has its own laws for determining who is king, so his abdication as king of the UK would not affect his position as king of Australia. While the current succession laws are identical in the two countries, an abdication in the UK would mean the laws were different.
It would be similar to when Victoria succeeded William IV as Queen of the UK but not Hanover, because under its succession laws, only men could inherit the crown.
I'm looking forward to the Constitutional Clarion doing a video on this and our Succession Laws. If, as you say, they're the same, I don't think it makes a difference to the scenario posed in this video.
@@saimoncoleAlthough the laws are currently the same, the videos asks about the scenario of an abdication. Since the abdication would be an act of Westminster, it would have no force in Australia.
New Zealand is the only other Commonwealth country that has its own succession laws. In every other Commonwealth realm, the sovereign of the UK is recognized as their sovereign.
@@nickd4310 That's right. I'm not sure Succession Act here would be relevant to the King's abdication in the UK. He'd continue as King here. Only when he dies does our Succession Act govern who succeeds him.
@saimoncole That was my point. An abdication act in Westminster would not have legal force in Australia. It would require an Australian law for Charles to abdicate as king of Australia. Similarly, if he abdicated as king of Australia, he would remain king of the UK.
Charles' claim to the throne of Australia is the succession laws that became Australian law in 1986 and were copied from British laws. As intended, they made the same man the king in both countries but either country could change them, possibly resulting in different people ruling in the two countries.
@@nickd4310 ok. What did you mean 'an abdication in the UK would mean the laws were different'?
you're extremely underrated. just came across you, loving it so far, your sense of humour is utterly fantastic, never did I see myself watching fanfics about the australian constitution
Glad to have found you. I am an Aussie who has been in China for 28 years and am trying to re-educate myself as i transition back to Australia.
Let me know if there are other channels like this one. ChatGPT recommended this channel and i am happy to be here. Seems like a worthwhile channel to follow - fun and informative.
My thoughts are that I assume that if the UK became a republic Charles (or whomever is occupying it at the time) will sign papers abdicating the throne, and at the same time those papers would include the Commonwealth countries. I think we would have to have a referendum prior to that if we wanted to keep the monarchy in the event of the UK becoming a republic.
The Vice-Regal residence in Canada is called "Rideau Hall" and indeed "Rideau Hall" is used fairly frequently in the Canadian media as a shorthand to refer to the office of the Governor General in the same way that "Buckingham Palace" is used in the UK, e.g. "The newest inductees into the Order of Canada were announced in a statement released today by Rideau Hall."
Ooo I've never thought about this as a possibility before. Very interesting!
if UK decided to become a Republic, the country need to change it's named from United Kingdom to the United Republic or UR. since a Kingdom is associated with Monarchism and the authority of Kingships. and the official titles would be The President of the United Republic.
Woops! Thanks for pointing out that I'd missed that.
@@AuspolExplained no problem
I imagine if the UK became a republic, independence for the countries within the UK would be shortly round the corner, so I imagine we'd drop the 'United' as well
@@sheffieldsam6212: This comment from ≈ two years ago is ∴ worth perusing vis-à-vis what you wrote:
“Daisy Blue
1 DAY AGO
In the UK the monarchy will never die, no matter how much the Republican movement try to intervene.
They basically own the place.
But, the commonwealth countries like Australia will eventually pull away and hopefully it’s not too far away from happening.
Many people in Scotland want out and Ireland may join back as one nation and Wales is talking about leaving too.
King Charles and Camilla are old, William and Kate are bland, Harry has left, Andrew is no longer welcome, Edward hasn’t been seen for thirty years until Harrys departure and Anne’s best days are behind her.
As they say, long live the King with his medieval traditions that no longer fit the twenty first century here in Australia.”
[Ends]
@@DarthMalgusSith_Lord Technically the UKs full formal name is “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. I’d imagine they’d place more emphasis on Great Britain and Northern Ireland part.
The British absolutely did "physically divide the monarch into several different pieces" (well, two pieces) just like the French. Both countries also had a restoration of the monarchy, but it didn't stick in France.
Britain didn't do that, sovereignty is vested entirely in the Monarch. What Britain DID slowly do over time was create a divide between Sovereignty and day-to-day executive power. The King can still technically dismiss parliament whenever he wants and issue decrees, it's just that since the Civil War the Monarchs have been well aware that they have to work with both Parliament and the Army (which were basically the same thing for a long time) to avoid getting overthrown.
It's not illegal for the King to be political, even aggressively so, just taboo. It's extremely difficult to compare Britain and the Dominions to American or French-derived democracies because even when they have apparent congruencies with eachother, the real way power and sovereignty are defined is fundamentally completely different.
@@rocksandforestquiver959 You've completely misunderstood my comment. The British physically divided Charles I just like the French did to Louis XVI (they cut their heads off).
@ 😂 you're right I did misread that lol
Not sure if the king could just "Abolish the Governor General". Section 2 of the Constitution enshrines the office of the Governor General. Whilst it could be argued by virtue of s7 part 4 that His Majesty could exercise his powers when physically being in a state, I am not sure there exist similar provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution. Maybe one could argue that the King could technically appoint himself as the Governor General. I guess he would be wearing not only the many crowns that you mentioned but also several hats.
You may be right in that it might not be a simple process, but I would point out that section 2 says that the Governor-General "may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure" which to me reads as the existence of the Governor-General is not guaranteed, just that this is the constitutional and legal basis for the monarch to choose a representative and then give them powers (or limit their power) through letters patent. The office is dependent on the monarch choosing a representative - but doesn't need one in this scenario. All hypothetical, of course.
@ indeed, a very unlikely scenario, with a lot of legal maybes. I would point out, however, that as the Irish learned during the 1936 abdication crisis, that the role of the Governor General is not so easily extinguished.
I agree with you. WHilst the Constitution places all executive power in the King, that power can only be exercised by a Governor General. The King's power is limited to the ability to withdraw assent from a Bill and appoint the Governor General.
When the King is present in Australia, the GG stands aside. If the UK became a republic, the King could come out here and things would continue as usual, but I'm not sure for how long. Public opinion and convention would compel us to hold a referendum and update the constitution.
The King and Royal Family could relocate to Australia and become official Australians and then Australia would FINALLY have our OWN Head of State and be fully Sovereign. That would be preferable to still being under Britain's Crown 😅
“Power of imagination“ and “constitutional law” in the same sentence. 😍 The TH-cam algorithm put this video onto my Home Screen this morning. One of my “roads not travelled” is constitutional law (yes really.) I’m so happy to discover your channel.
We missed the chance of getting the Crown passed on to Elizabeth II's dogs. Imagine how cute a corgi wearing a crown would be on the money
i love the silly garbage fanfic, i love this unhinged hypothetical auspol
I’m in favour of reinterpretation where nothing changes besides renaming the governor general to regent and pretending they’re keeping the throne warm for someone
Some proper free speech protections would be nice
would also be pretty chill if the government wasnt able restrict us to within 5km's of our homes
Ah, the Kingdom of Hungary option. But who would be our Admiral Horthy?
@@TotalWateryou do realize 5km/s is faster than the speed of sound.
Please keep up the great work!
The 1953 Novel "In the Wet" by Neville Shute set in a futuristic Australia in the year 1983, imagined Queen Elizabeth II fleeing a troubled Britian with a republican leaning government to live in Australia. In her stead she has appointed a Governor-General of Great Britian to act on her behalf. "The Queen announces this on her Christmas broadcast, and makes it clear that she and her family will not return to Britain without the country having undergone political reforms, meaning both the multiple vote, and the installation of a Governor General for the United Kingdom as a necessary buffer between Monarch and Parliament, whose behaviour and treatment of the Queen has become both a constitutional and personal affront prior to this declaration." Until vote reforms in the late 19th Century Britian had plural voting, something largely alien to today's concept of "one man, one vote". Interestingly, Shute has imagined a Britian where people can earn or be awarded up to 7 votes. "Perhaps the most interesting (and enduring) feature of the book is the "multiple vote", seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to David Anderson for his heroism, is only given at the Queen's discretion by Royal Charter.'
This was a fantastic video David. Thank you.
I like the idea of Charlie moving to Jamaica and Australia being subject to the King of Jamaica. We might chill out a bit and legalise pot
I would guess if the King moved to a realm the GG would essentially become a paperwork role important in name but basically just a staffer for the king sorta like the Lord Chamberlain in the UK.The King would do all the actual stuff
The GG only carries out duties in the name of the monarch in case of their absence so yeah I mean theoretically with the King permanently resident the GG would basically be the... Vice-King?😂
strictly speaking England has already been a republic in the 1650s when they executed charles 1st and Oliver cromwell became the lord protector. with those lovely puritans running around making life miserable for everybody.
also they tried it earlier and set up a sort of pseudo republic under simon de montfort which lasted until edward 1st beat him in the barons wars.
so republics aren't exactly new to England.
Also, during that time, America, I believe, actually remained loyal to the crown.
Yes. Americans. You used to be more loyal to the British monarchy... Then the... English, Scottish, and Irish (At the time they were separate crowns, sorry Wales.)
As an American who doesn’t know a ton about the Australian constitution and laws this is very interesting! I do have a question; what would things look like if there was a separate King/Queen of Australia? Like, Charles or whoever still in the UK, someone else entirely in Australia. Would it be possible, how would such a monarch be decided, what would things look like/would there be any benefits to having an Australian only monarch?
Very much appreciate and enjoy your videos!
It'd work. The change would likely require a referendum to choose a new royal line, or the agreement of all Commonwealth Realms to alter the legislation on line of succession so a new person could inherit. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be a simple decision of parliament.
This was a funny and very enjoyable video haha, thank you
Plonk the King in Yarralumla.
funny bit, I was heading into the comments to mention the andorra example and say your theory wasn't as bad as you thought it was … and exactly then you mentioned it 😅
I'm in Canada and think it's quite possible the UK will do it before us. The amending formula to get rid of the monarchy here is damn near impossible to meet constitutionally here.
It's always been my belief that because Australia is it's own constitutional monarchy, and that constitutional monarchy isn't strictly speaking linked to the UK government in any legal sense, so if the UK became a republic then the Monarch of Australia would simply remain the same - regardless of anything the UK does. Australia (and other commonwealth dominions) would need to negotiate it's own republic in order to break with said monarch.
Hey David, love your videos, I’m here to ask a question! What would happen if a majority government won the House of Reps by a tiny margin-say, 76-75-and then two sitting MPs from the government side became unavailable (e.g., resign, pass away, or are disqualified), flipping the numbers to 74-75? I know the two vacant seats wouldn’t stay unoccupied for long, but for argument’s sake, let’s say they are. Would the opposition automatically form government, or would there be a different process to resolve the situation? Would the Governor-General get involved? Love to hear your take on this hypothetical - fun and not serious :)
If the government loses its majority due to seats becoming vacant it can request the Governor-General prorogue parliament until after the by-elections resolve if the government can regain its majority. If those seats get won by the opposition then there are two options. First is the government calls for a general election and resolves the issue. If an election isn't called then the second optiom is the opposition has the numbers to pass a motion of no confidence and demonstrate they have the numbers to govern, so the government would resign and the Governor-General would appoint the Leader of the Opposition to PM.
@@AuspolExplainedIn that by-election, those seats would be up for grab right? And if the opposition suddenly won those seats - forming majority, would they call for a vote of no confidence? If passed, parliament would either resign the current PM and transfer power, if you will, to the new majority party leader without need for a general election - or would the (no longer confident majority) PM push for a new general election?
@@AuspolExplainedomg I’m sorry, the website didn’t update and I hadn’t seen your extended comment lol. Haha.
All good! I accidentally posted it before finishing so had to edit it.
As a monarchist, I'd probably end up moving to Australia or Canada if this happened.
I doubt we will see if the monarchy does get abolished (They do genuinely make Britain more money than they take [They take like 300ish mil and they give 400ish mil], and I don't think they cost the Commonwealth realms anything unless they arrive in which costs are covered by that realm) at least in Britain.
If till 1986 all Australians were subjects to the Queen of Australia in regards the Commonwealth but subject of the Queen of the UK in regards to the states. Also given the High Court has said that dual UK and Australian citizen cannot sit in Federal parliament. Does that make all members of parliament till 1986 ineligible as British subject ie foreign subjects??
No, because the UK wasn't legally a foreign power in the past. The Australia Act isn't retroactive in application.
All Australians were British subjects until 1984, the was no distinction between the state and federal level. When the crown became divisible and the Queen of Australia was evolved as a seperate position, all this really did was mean that when exercising her federal Australians powers she would act on the advice of Australian (Federal) Minister. Rather than British Ministers as had been the case prior.
Also British subjecthood was an indicator you were a citizen of the Empire (which then became Commonwealth) rather than a citizen of the UK (which is a seperate category). In any case the UK for a large part of Australia’s history wasn’t a foreign power, it is only with the severing of the final links in 1986 did the UK become a foreign power.
@@JamesVCTH Actually, the Queen acted on the advice of Australian ministers long before the position of Queen of Australia was created. Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia's first GG under Ben Chifley was appointed on Chifley's advice and King George resented being told he had no option, but eventually caved in.
@@saimoncole The crown (at the commonwealth level) became divisible around 1926-1930. Around the same time Issacs was appointed.
The evolution of the Queen of Australia as a seperate position predates officially giving her that title (which didn’t happen until 1953).
I wouldn’t worry too much. There is no constitutional mechanism for the UK to abolish of the monarchy at all. In the UK (I don’t know about in Commonwealth realms) parliament cannot even discuss any matter relating to the King, or his powers or even anything that might affect his affairs without the consent of the crown.
The convention here is that the monarchy is not ever discussed in parliament, ever. The speaker will name the MP and have them removed from the house for even mentioning the King or any other HRH. The monarchy is deeply intertwined with every institution of the state here. The courts, the military, the government and to this day the church. If anyone thought Brexit was tedious, imagine the mess of untangling a thousand years of monarchy. It would cause endless grief, and would be stuck in the courts and be debated on in parliament for the next thousand years if we had to pick it all apart.
I truly believe as many others do that only revolution could bring the monarchy down in the UK. I think Australia could drop the crown one day and perhaps Canada will follow, but the UK couldn’t if it wanted to, not peacefully.
The French president as Prince of Andorra works because the princeship is held _ex officio_ by the French head of state, which passed from the monarch to the president. The same is not the case for King Charles, who is King of Australia in his own right according to the Australian laws of succession, which are unconnected to British law apart from the principle that they shouldn't (but still could) be altered independently of the other regal states. Option #2 is definitely a farce.
And the Channel Isles (there he's the Duke of Normandy!)...
On your scenario 2 you are using the covering clauses, however the covering clauses are not a part of the constitution itself, they are a part of the British Act that established the Constitution which is clause 9 of that Act. The Monarchy (and I'm sure you are aware of this based on what you said) has been legally split from the UK Monarchy. We have our own succession laws and the UK can't change them. If the UK became a Monarchy, Charles and his heirs and successors according to Australian Law remain as Monarchs. The UK president would have no role in governing Australia. The biggest anomaly (perhaps the only one) is that Parliamentarians would still need to swear allegiance to the King of the UK which may be difficult if that title no longer exists, although technically the Constitution says the King of Great Britain and Ireland and that office no longer exists either.
You mean "if the UK became a Republic," and yes Charles (and his heirs and successors) according to Australian law would remain as Monarch of Australia. Some constitutional changes would need to be made (for example to the oath of allegiance). The Constitution makes no mention of a King of Great Britain and Ireland. We would need a referendum to update our constitution given the new circumstances and the choices could include replacing the Governor General with an elected Head of State or with King Charles (if we want it and it would probably entail him and family agreeing to migrate to Australia) or with an Australian with legitimate ties to the English throne like the Earl of Loudoun, Simon Abney-Hastings. (search 'equanimity australian constitutional monarchy')
@ It mentions the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland in the footnote to the schedule containing the Parliamentarians oath. "(NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)" I'm not a Laywer (let alone a constitutional one) and I'm not sure if the note merely provides guidance or is a fundamental part of the Constitution.
i'm sorry to hear you got kicked out of the cafe
its funny to me that there have been points where the UK is closer to abolishing it than we are
also i think at least canada if not a few others are higher on the list than australia
Canada is about the farthest away from it. To abolish the monarchy in Canada would effectively require unanimity amount the entire population to do so with the way the constitution is structured. Not to mention that no one has really any strong negative feelings towards the monarchy as an institution.
@@Miloradsfriend Interesting. And their Upper House is more like the Lords - appointed by the PM.
God Save the King!
Since the constitution specifically says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"
If all of Ireland were to unify, would that have any impact on the constitution? Would we need to amend it to remove Ireland or if the Irish were like "We're gonna have our own monarch for Ireland" they'd be able to claim some sort of legitimacy in Australia?
While im not a australian constitutional scholar, i am pretty sure that the desvription of "descendants of queen victoria" is intenteded to be literal because that is how claims to the throne work.
Becausr australia has an amendme t process (whatever that is) it is clearly intendended to go thru that process if something needs to be changed.
I think the second option is perfectly legitimate and actually quite likely. There is also a third option: The UK finds a solution under which the king _of_ England becomes the king _in_ England, who gets certain privileges under the new constitution (or more likely, as we are talking about the UK: as part of the new amendments to the old constitution). In particular, the king _in_ England gets diplomatic immunity similar to an ambassador, but also the absolute right to remain in the UK. So unlike an ambassador he cannot even be expelled if he commits a crime.
Then as countries gradually get rid of the king, sooner or later there will be a king _in_ England who is not in fact a king of any country, but even in the best case scenario it will take a few more centuries until the UK abolishes this ridiculous title.
Does the fact that the UK has changed name and territory since the Australian constitution was written have any relevance?
The history of Andorra is fascinating, and I was thinking of it before you mentioned it.
No. It's the same as the monarch is no longer Queen Victoria. The historical nomenclature is interpreted generically... If the UK became a republic, Charles would still be the King of Australia.
The monarch doesn't need to move. They own property all over Britain. In Australia the crown owns Admiralty house in Sydney. They could simply operate as King remotely from Britain. They also get an incredible amount of money from the crown estates. Currently this goes through the British government. If Britain abolished the monarchy where they are, this money would then go directly to the crown. The monarch governs Australia within the boundaries of the Australian monarchy. The king could be part of any role in the future of Britain, but within Australia he would still be the King. Nothing that happens in Britain has any effect on the other realms.
As you said, the interpretation to consider the president of the uk to be our monarch would be a little silly, but I'd add it would likely be very unpopular interpretation given one argument often raised against Australia becoming a republic is the concern that electing a head of state could end up going down the same extremes as the usa. This scenario not only has a popularly elected head of state, but one who was voted in by not Australians. So the high court when it would inevitably be involved in testing the legitimacy of that interpretation would be facing both literalist and unpalitability concerns.
I need Anne Twomey's opinion on this now
Yes, she said she's going to do a video on it. I've written my thoughts (search 'equanimity australian constitutional monarchy')
Nothing. As Charles III is independently King of Australia he would continue to be so even after the UK inexplicably becomes a republic. He would probably move to Australia or another Commonwealth realm though and “rule” directly instead of a Governor-General.
I'm not sure he could, as the Constitution explicitly states that the Executive powers of the Monarch can only be exercised by a Governor General. The King would retain a minimal role in legislation (the ability to withdraw Royal Assent under S59).
@@almango873 When the King is in Australia, the GG steps aside and the King acts for himself. However, if this became a permanent situation, there would need to be a referendum to formalize it (and abolish the GG's position probably).
@@saimoncole If the King moves to Australia, does that mean that the GG basically gets paid to do nothing?
@greywolf7577 More or less. Another reason why that situation would be untenable for any length of time.
@ I'm not sure that Queen Elizabeth or King Charles ever performed Executive Govt constitutional duties whilst in Australia. I know that the Queen did perform some Parliamentary duties that were either not mentioned in the Constitution (she opened Parliament on one or more occasions) and she gave assent to the Australia Acts (maybe more than this). I don't think Charles did anything other than visit us but I could be wrong. I think under our current Constitution it would be Charles who has nothing much to do Governmental wise if he lived here.
“President of the United Kingdom”
Great Britain and Northern Ireland probably
President of the United States of Britain and Ulster (Northern Ireland)
I've never liked the idea of the UK having a president, mainly because when doctor who visited a parralel universe UK where we had a president, the country ended up being overthrown by cybermen.
TRUE
You say it's ridiculous and unlikely, but that underestimates the power of political gridlock. Sure this wouldn't happen intentionally, but the idea aussies could still be arguing over how to choose their head of state, when the UK becomes a republic is not beyond the realm of possibility.
This question is more plausible than you think. Labour over here have abolished the last remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords. It's remote but not inconceivable for their coup de grâce to be the abolition of the greatest hereditary lord of them all.
Section 4 crimes against the Crown "Any act causing government, law, constitution, sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt." So those four things require everyones consent or we hold them in hatred and contempt,
The point of Au having a monarchy is that the head of state is powerless, irrelevant, and _a long way away._ If he moved in to Kirribilli and started taking an interest in how we run the country, he wouldn't be a useful defence against presidency, he'd be just the same as a president - too powerful and too here.
If the UK goes republic, we could probably borrow Denmark's monarch. They would also be powerless, irrelevant, and a long way away, with the bonus of actually being part Australian, while having that gorgeous accent. But anything that protects us from having a president like the US system is good by me.
Also, we should make the governor general an Indigenous elder, chosen by a council of Indigenous elders. It's a ceremonial role rather than having actual power, but the prime minister has to speak to the GG regularly, and the GG is the representative of sovereignty - so they really should be Indigenous.
Auspol Explained: "Go and have a look at these other two videos I spent a lot of time on putting forward the points of remaining a constitutional monarchy and becoming a republic."
Me: "Nah, I'm just going to give you my opinion here and now without watching those other videos."
SO! I was a constitutional monarchist (not a member of the league, just a personal opinion) for a very long time. My argument was "why change? What do we gain? Realistically we just have an additional elected position and have to give the new 'executive' branch of government a role, what stays parliamentary and what become executive? This would be a long, messy and drawn out process that no one will be happy with and would likely be open to varying levels of political shit-fuckery (technical Australian term for when politicians abuse their power for their own political gain in case any foreigner are watching) with the division of powers." Fast forward a few years and I've come around to a more nuance position of, yes, let's look at becoming a republic but for a reason. What's our reason for becoming a republic? Is it flag change? You know you can just change the flag without a republic referendum right? What structural constitutional issue do we need to address with a constitutional overhaul and a referendum? I had thought that indigenous recognition issues would be the big change we could address. Then the voice referendum failed. Sad. So my current position is, "Republic? Yes, but only for a good reason." - Rebrand from monarch to local executive, not a good reason because we have that effectively under the current set up with the governor general for all intents and purposes. Realistically, no modern monarch is going to go against their local ministers recommendations, or by convention to date no modern monarch has gone against their local ministers and Australia has been "self governing" for all intents and purposed. A change to the practice would likely lead to a "good reason" which would be the monarchy no longer being A-political and Australia is no longer "self-governing".
I'm going to go watch the videos now and see if my opinions change based on the arguments put forward. Thank you for producing this content.
Jamaica could be next, as soon as this year
Some of us escaped Republics.. there are 149 Republics..
It would, indeed, be far easier for the UK to become a republic than for Canada. The monarchy is deeply entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, such that abolishing the Canadian Crown would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces as well as of the federal Parliament. In the UK, all that would be required would be a simple act of Parliament, as was the case in Barbados when it became a republic.
When Australia does become a Republic, because monarchy, even the more tokenism they kind of all are is archaic and kind of pointless. But obviously becoming a Republic would mean there would be a lot of changes to the Australian constitution, but I think it would be a good move forward.
I think both of your scenarios are plausible.
The first certainly feels more likely.
But the second would be the only reasonable interpretation if the royal family decided to dissolve themselves as an entity upon the UK becoming a Republic.
Why can’t they live in Australia they let everyone else live here.
We could start dealing with the GG in the Constitution piece by piece, For example in Section 68 the Commander in Chief could be changed to whoever is the Chief of Joint Capabilities is. Could the King of UK (as the Commander in Chief) stop Australia defending itself? It has already ordered Australians to surrender which led to the fall of Singapore.
I think you're confusing our system with the USA. We don't have Commander in Chief as such in the Executive branch. The King has no real power in Australia.
Another option to consider, what would happen if we appointed someone else King? Robert Irwin? Hugh Jackman? Sam Kerr?
I could make a video on that 👀
6:14 Did not the Australia Act 1986 supersede all previous act
It allowed Australian states to repeal UK legislation that affected them, but the states have chosen to preserve some imperial legislation. They're free to repeal anything from the past though.
Next Video what if France or Germany join Commonwealth Realms and King Charles The 3rd Head of State of France and Co-princes of Andorra and Head of State for Germany Technically House of Windsor was a German Royal House Former Name is House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Countries can join Commonwealth Realms Especially in Europe Which Famous Royal Family Come From ?
0:09 they already did
1:02 Hanover or Hohenzollern that is the question
1:47 yes they did
The King of Australia can't fire the Governor-General of Australia since the Governor-General is a creature of the Australian constitution. Oh & by the way us 🇬🇧 won't be abolishing our monarchy anytime soon. Unlike the Australian constitution, the 🇬🇧 crown is of us directly, regardless of our heritage, out of time & mind.
The GG of Australia serves at the monarch's pleasure. The monarch is literally the only one who can fire the GG
What a great topic 😂
England already became a republic in 1649 when King Charles was murdered. That was a disaster, as republics so often are.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and IRELAND ceased to exist in 1921 with the creation of the Irish Free State... soooo.... could it be said that because a nation with that name no longer exists, Australia doesn't have to follow that part of the constitution?
Scary… I hope the monarchy is never abolished
Have an extra algorithm comment for the piplup plush.
I have waited
It wouldn't be the United Kingdom without a monarch...but what would it be called?
Possibly the "Commonwealth of Britain", but more likely the boring 'Republic of Britain'.
@@saimoncoleConsidering that misses out Northern Ireland, probably just
"The Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
It would be called United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I fail to understand why we haven't become a republic & cast off Britain as our colonial authority. The last referendum was a majority vote to stay under UK rule. WHY??? I wonder how much of Australian taxpayers money gets paid to the UK for the privilege of being part of the British Commonwealth? Remaining a British colony seems so archaic.
"Australia does not fund the King or wider royal family for any activities taken outside of Australia, either towards personal income or to support royal residences outside of Australia. When monarch visits Australia, their expenses are paid for by the Australian Government." - From Wikipedia
"The simple answer is No. Australia does not pay a cent for maintenance or security of the Sovereign." - From the Australian Nationhood Foundation
"Australia does not pay a cent for maintenance or security of the Sovereign." - Australian Monarchist League
Dumn dumb, nice try at the rage baiting.
@@zombiedalekweck2243 I wasn't trying to bait anyone. I was just wondering. Thanks for the info but there was no need to be a dick about it.
David, if you can remain politically neutral in the delivery of your content and allow all viewpoints expressed then this will be an oasis.
Yes, this is why there are SIX (6) classes of British nationality to this day, which critics accuse of being a form of “citizenship apartheid”.
You ∴ I also am sure KNOW the (British) Commonwealth does NOT exist in reality - in fact, there is literally no benefit to Australia picking up a significant amount of the tab.
For example, Canada - the 2nd biggest contributor - refused to pay up because Sri Lanka (Colombo) hosted the 2013 Summit.
Anyway, the concept of “Shared Citizenship”, i.e. when individuals of member countries could use their national membership status for emigration to the UK - had disappeared by E. “Ted” R. G. Heath’s time (“Britain’s future is in Europe” - J. Harold Wilson).
Furthermore, the UK is an economic rival of Australia in myriad ways, especially since the disintegration of the British Empire & the British Isles’ propinquity to Continental Europe (January 1973) as I mentioned earlier.
The UK is not even one of Australia’s top five trading partners - even Singapore does more business with Australia than the UK.
The constitution is out of date. We may need to become a republic and renew the constitution for future Australia.
I vote Charles moves to Jamaica. He gets a promotion there versus anywhere else.
A scenario in which this weird idea might happen would be if monarch were caught red-handed interfering in UK politics on behalf of the Tories (or other Right wing party) and other members of the family firm were implicated. A Left side UK government might be able to push for abolition, but a Right side AU government might prefer to keep the meddling monarch.
I doubt in the circumstnces the ermine vermin would be persuaded to take up a new, reduced role in the sun though. Far easier to just all retire with their money.
Stuff it, let’s just pull a fast one and fully separate from the commonwealth without becoming a republic. Then elect our own Aussie monarchy, go super industrial and nationalistic, only let in high value migrants from the most high value developed nations, and fully invest in improving Australia internally and trying to coax commonwealth and small Asia-pacific countries into joining us to form an imperial federation.
Then we can crack a funny and try to form a more centralised and ambitious commonwealth descended imperial federation without Britain, and have a main talking pound be the goal to surpass the British isles and become the true successors to the empire in culture, influence, advancement, but also exceeding by actually making the imperial federation concept into reality.
swear an oath to uphold a constitution based on human rights not a monarch
democratically elected officials of people who are born with in the commonwealth of australia
4:25 … 1600s
5:07 there needs to be reunification
This is a plot. The plot of a novel.
So, we can invite king Charles to live in Adelaide? Assuming Canada's climate is out of question for Charles.
Why Adelaide? (:>)
@@saimoncolefor no apparent reason tbh. I assume Charles has no interest in Darwin :)
@theuniqid Yeah but the obvious choice is Canberra....?
Then I guess Australia will become a Republic by default.
Before watching the video prediction: We fight Canada for who gets the sovereign.
Nah, you can have him. He's not worth shedding blood over
That'll be the dat Britain becomes a Republic
Ha ha. I always joke that the UK will become a republic before we do in Australia. 😂. I’m only half joking. 😩
If we British types were to dispose of the monarchy in an orderly fashion, I could see the Crown persisting as an abstract entity seperate from any specific individual, with the elected Head of State holding delegated Crown authority in legislatively defined circumstances, as this would create the least problem when it comes to the likes of legal precedent.
Indeed, Parliament theoretically could have a system whereas the king is chosen by them, and then remove the monarch every few years, but have this be an automatic application.
Apart from renaming the office there's not too much to actually change. Parliament already has the legal right to appoint regents and designate heirs.
@@calum5975 I was thinking more along the lines of an elected figurehead president, like Ireland, but with their powers defined in terms such as 'can exercise the Crown's power to dissolve Parliament, when requested to do so by the Prime Minister'.
I want Scotland to leave so their flag will change and we will have the old one and they won't 😂
Someone get Matt Baker from Useful charts on this one 😜
God save the King!
Your second scenario isn’t the craziest idea. Some years before Elizabeth II’s death, some Canadian pundits suggested we could get rid of our monarchy by simply declining to recognize a successor and leaving her as Queen.
Gonna pull a Kaiserreich and flee to Canada.
1:14 The Kohinoor wasn’t stolen, it was given to Queen Victoria willingly as a gift by the Maharajah of Lahore at the time.
source?
@@paxyandtobzThe treaty of Lahore
I think you'll find the maharaja was tricked and was still a minor at the time
@@martychisnall "Although some thought it should have been presented as a gift to Queen Victoria by the East India Company, it is clear that Dalhousie believed the stone was a spoil of war, and treated it accordingly, ensuring that it was officially surrendered to her by Duleep Singh, the youngest son of Ranjit Singh.[48] The presentation of the Koh-i-Noor by the East India Company to the queen was the latest in a long history of transfers of the diamond as a coveted spoil of war.[49] Duleep Singh had been placed in the guardianship of Dr John Spencer Login, a surgeon in the East India Company Army serving in the Presidency of Bengal. Duleep Singh moved to England in 1854 and spent the rest of his life in exile" -Wikipedia.
Do you have any sources that truly claim the maharaj willingly gave the diamond?
That won't happen
Sorry Charlie, we are full!!
It will never happen!
God Save The King!
The French comment 😂