The Coronation of the King of Australia

Рет қаралды 2,431

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 40

@brontewcat 6 ай бұрын

I saw it as a ceremony for us Australians, not just the Brits. I see being a monarchy as something that binds us together with Tuvalu, PNG, NZ, Canada and the rest including Britain. That is something to be celebrated.

@doubledee9675 6 ай бұрын

I am one of those still around who can remember the death of George VI. I was at school and we were called to a special assembly where the headmaster announced the death of George VI and that Elizabeth II was now Queen. We then went back to class - no need to miss any schooling because of the event.

@millar6070 Жыл бұрын

As I believe, in the document that Queen Victoria, had placed the Royal Seal upon the parchment, Stating , we within the realm of Australia, must recognize her and her Decedents. Recognize isn't the same as being King or Queen of Australia. I'm a Royalist by the way, and proud of it, as an Australian!!

@Zodiacircle Жыл бұрын

I think The King is better than any Politician we have to put up with in Australia.. He has done more good for this world too... Long live the King..

@sonic50ish 6 ай бұрын

HAH

@hmao4466 Жыл бұрын

After listening to your detailed and interesting comments it sounds to me as if he is definitely King of Australia.

@sormcmxcix 6 ай бұрын

You’re wonderful

@constitutionalclarion1901 6 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@doctorshoot 6 ай бұрын

Just for clarification When was the division of the British crown made? My understanding is that there are two kings; one is a king sole being the person of Charles drawing cash from his duchys and property, and the other is the body corporate being the king of England owning all crown lands and owning and selling stocks and bonds on world markets and trading as a corporate entity If this is true which one is king of Australia as represented by the governors general and state?

@constitutionalclarion1901 6 ай бұрын

The Crown became divisible either in 1926 or 1930, depending on what you count. But that divisibility was in relation to different Dominions and was based upon a change in convention as to who advised the monarch. Hence, King Charles is acting as King of the United Kingdom when he acts on the advice of British ministers and King of Canada when he acts on the advice of Canadian ministers, etc. We now have a 'King of Australia' because the King is advised by Australian ministers on Australian matters. There is an older doctrine of the King's two bodies - being his physical body, which may die, and the office or institution of monarch, which continues in existence and is filled by someone else.

@doctorshoot 6 ай бұрын

@@constitutionalclarion1901 OK thank you for the response I think I went to a couple of your lectures way back when I did a year's study under the B&S constitutional course mid 90s

@dameinnoble3995 Жыл бұрын

I’m looking forward to it, have a few of us coming together for a bbq to watch it.

@martino2794 6 ай бұрын

By the Grace of God King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and his other Realms and Territories. Australia's one of the Realms

@constitutionalclarion1901 6 ай бұрын

Yes, but it was sad that we were reduced to an unnamed 'other' and not even given a direct reference in the Coronation ceremony, departing from the precedents set in earlier ones.

@brontewcat 6 ай бұрын

@@constitutionalclarion1901Yes - it would be no ce if if Charles had named all his realms - the numbers are decreasing so it wouldn’t have taken too long😉

@donwelch4453 3 ай бұрын

Hi Ann a lot of your videos the comments are tuned off you seem to like to put your opinion forward and deny the right of others to reply why do you not do follow up videos replying to. Comments?

@constitutionalclarion1901 3 ай бұрын

The problem is that the vast majority of comments do not address the content of the video, but rather involve people making abusive comments in relation to other issues. Hence, I have to turn off the comments. It's a pity, but if people abuse the opportunity to comment, then that is the consequence.

@Sy1mmxxiv 3 ай бұрын

@@constitutionalclarion1901well said, A. Putting up with trolls, bots and those with an agenda is becoming tiresome. Your posts are fantastic and appreciated by many, many people from around the commonwealth. Cheers Steve

@Sy1mmxxiv 3 ай бұрын

It is not her ‘opinion’, it is information shared based in law. What point were you trying to express?

@frogmatt33 6 ай бұрын

Exactly what is the "Australian" Crown? Regal Titles cannot be just "made up", and since the AUS Act severed us from the Privy Council, and thereby UK Law, would that not make this "Crown" a instrument of law, not at Law a regal title?

@mindi2050 Жыл бұрын

Thank you, Professor Twomey. Even a staunch Australian republic supporter like me supports Australia's version of the Westminster parliamentary system. Although preferably without a non-resident "King of Australia". So, I would say 'yes' to the question you posed at the end.

@ianport2185 7 ай бұрын

From your account of the Coronation of William I, it appears it was the first one in England and created for the sole purpose of forcing the population to acknowledge him as king. This isn’t the case - Coronation were already integral to government of the realm. (I'm sure you knew this!).

@constitutionalclarion1901 7 ай бұрын

You are right - it wasn't the first one, but it was probably the most notable one!

@youbigtubership Жыл бұрын

Great story about the Anglo-Saxons at William the Conqueror's coronation. I wonder what an equivalent in Australia might have been. Worrying about the Britishness of the King and whether or not the Head of State in Australia was born here is in my view short-sighted Aussie parochialism, past its day. We're in a global network which is remarkably discreet in how it maintains control Besides, it's not like our King doesn't have deep connections to an advanced military which could plant an extra spout in Lake Burley-Griffin in a matter of hours. The redcoats are coming! The redcoats are comibg!😉

@mountbatten2222 3 ай бұрын

FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER; PROF. ANN IS REFRESHING HUMOUROUS !

@ironbark88 6 ай бұрын

Shouldn't he be Charles I, King of Australia.

@constitutionalclarion1901 6 ай бұрын

They had that argument about Elizabeth II. Gough Whitlam wanted to remove the 'II', because there was only one Elizabeth who was Queen of Australia. But the Queen rejected his proposal. The Palace was concerned about re-opening fights about regnal numbers in relation to Scotland, which is quite tricky indeed. (And yes, the Queen was able to defeat the will of Gough Whitlam!) See my book - 'The Chameleon Crown' (Federation Press, 2006) which sets out the whole incident.

@aussiedonaldduck2854 6 ай бұрын

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Some time ago I read that Charles would be King Charles the Fifth because of previous Kings of Scotland. Due to these regnal issues. Are you able to shed any light on why this did not happen? I had read that this had been agreed with Scotland back when the first & Second Charles were crowned.

@MZCHIEF4422 6 ай бұрын

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Gough did remove the Queen by introducing the Australia Act and he replaced her with the fictional Queen of Australia. The Government since that time has been working as a corporation and they redefined the constitution. All highly treasonous.

@donei132 2 ай бұрын

@@aussiedonaldduck2854 You might want to have a look at the list of Scottish monarchs. You’ll find there hadn’t been a King of Scotland/King of Scots until King Charles I. If there had been, he’d have been called Charles [Scottish number] and I, just like his father, James, was.