This is a forum for those who think monarchy is a noble and viable alternative to the crude and materialistic mob mentality of republicanism.
OC
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Ngl, if Australia wasn't a federation and was a unitary govt, this is probably what I'd go with.
Also I quite like the title of High Lord. Gives off that Warhammer 40k vibe and I'm totally not biased in that assessment.
I'm sure there's a way to work around the Federation to achieve a system of governance that's similar to this.
Cheers, thought it sounded far better than 'Prime Minister'.
I think we need more images of this type in this sub
It would definitely help facilitate more discussion about the theory and implementation of monarchism.
Eh..... I personally prefer the German system. Had more modern touches and I found it more palatable. Interesting idea tho
Could you tell me where I can find good information about the German system please? :)
My advice would be read the Constitution. Or the page on Wikipedia at least. It narrows down quite well
Thank you :]
What did you use to make this graphic?
I used Photoshop to make this.
To be honest this is the best system the home country I've seen, not that there is many, but i would still introduce some system of interaction between monarchy and Aboriginal tribal elders. Even if it only serves to remove dumb colonial notions from the common perception of monarchy.
Like the stuff outlined in the Uluru Statement? I thought I was forgetting something important when making the graphic.
I don’t really see an Uluru statement?
I mean that I forgot to include something to do with the Indigenous Australians. This is the Uluru Statement that I'm referring to.
Oh I see, well that’s good then.
As it would appear that each segment has a clear role to play, would that not make the whole thing a constitutional monarchy? What would make it 'semi'?
Can't speak for the OP, but for me "semi-Constitutional" is meant to be a half way point between constitutional and absolutism. So while there is a government system that most in the modern world would recognize, it would also give a good amount of actual power to the monarch.
Yet, that's still a constitutional system. A constitutional monarchy is not synonymous with 'ceremonial'. It merely means that everyone has a defined role. One can have a monarch as a strong executive in a constitutional system.
I find that since any monarchy with a constitution defining the power of the monarch, is technically a constitutional monarchy, we use the terms "constitutional monarchy", "semi-constitutional monarchy" and "absolute monarchy" to define the amount of power invested into the monarch.
That’s pretty much how I envision my dream monarchy. The 2/3 powers of the Legislative body has always been a key part for me. The monarchy is human so they can make bad decisions and I want there to be a check in place for that but I also want it to be a bit of a struggle for the legislature to overrule the crown in case they don’t like them or something. It also forces the legislature to work together, making party lines not so much of a thing (hopefully). Only part I’ve gone back and forth on is who would appoint ministers.
Agreed. The legislative checks on the power of the monarch also help prevent a tyrant from centralising more and more authority into the monarchy. I also hope that it would foster far greater bipartisan efforts and coalitions than we see today. My solution to the problem of ministers is to have the monarch approve whoever is going to pick the ministers (cabinet), which I like to think would work.
What prevents the Citizentry and politicians simply using the elections of Shire Congress as means to influence the National House of Lords rather than focus on local politics? That was one of the issues with the indirectly elected US Senate before the 17th Amendment. I could imagine stuff like the Lincoln-Douglas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debates) debates happening where candidates will use the election of the local assembly to determine national politics instead of focusing on local concerns. This would have the unintended consequence of nationalize local politics instead of decentralization.
What is the ratio between the directly elected and indirectly members of the National House of Lords and how come they are not in separate houses?
I honestly didn't think about that possibility when I was planning this out, do you have any suggestions for how this could be avoided?
The ratio is supposed to be 1:1, but due to not doing any decent research into Australian local government, I was unaware that there are 545 incorporated Local Government Areas. So unless I want there to be 1,090 Lords in the House, it will probably be altered to a degree.
The reason I put them in the same house is that I would want a space for debate over national legislation between the "will of the people" and the "will of the state".
Well you could have a noble class sit in the other half of the House of Lords, you could have them appointed by the King, or you can make them directly elected. Each comes with its own drawbacks and advantages.
Ooh. I like this. It’d fit nicely here in the US. Every state can elect a Lord, 50 Lords in total. If there’s a tie, the king can weigh in and pick a side.
Interesting system, personally I'd get rid of any elections from commoners and have power vested solely in the monarch and aristocracy, but this isn't a terrible system either.
Though I am a monarchist, I'd still prefer to have the citizenry having a say in the government -- coupled with greater education of course.