Australian Politics Forum - Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 55578
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #150 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 5:53pm

chimera wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 5:50pm:

Jasin wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 5:46pm:

We would still need an Institution of Master of Ceremony and an INDEPENDENT format of EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY to be represented.

Australian : ceremony. yer jokin'
The British landlords own the hardware do they?

Yes they do. Sacred Politics... as handed down from the Middle-East.
Rome/Athens are only the 'euro' original, not global.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14989 Armidale Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #151 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 6:41pm Jasin wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 5:53pm: Sacred Politics... as handed down from the Middle-East. Rome/Athens are only the 'euro' original, not global. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?
Back to top	IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 55578 Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #152 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 6:56pm Yeah. A politician telling a musician to mind his own business.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14989 Armidale Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #153 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:06pm Royals are not Political Britain but are political Australia and need to be conserved. Jasin and musicians are against royals but Jasin isn't and musicians shouldn't. Jasin is Anijs Nisaj Isnja.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3576
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #154 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:20pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:42pm:

This explains it very well.

"A future president would, after a successful referendum, be the lawful successor to the king who is referred to in the coronation oath."

Those who have criticised Anthony Albanese for his plan to swear allegiance to King Charles are dead wrong. The Prime Minister and every other republican can confidently recite this oath without fear of hypocrisy. And the reason is this: the coronation oath is conditional.

That condition is contained in its last four words. It might look like Albanese will simply swear allegiance to Charles and his heirs.

But the real significance is that the oath does not finish there. If it did, it would amount to an unending pledge of fealty to the senior member of the house of Windsor.

The most important part of the oath is that it requires Albanese to swear allegiance to the King’s “successors according to law”. And that might not be Prince William.

Australia makes its own laws. So the coronation oath amounts to recognition that Charles holds office as king of Australia not because of divine right, but because the law of Australia says so.

So if this country decides to become a republic, Albanese and all other republicans who take the coronation oath this weekend could consistently swear allegiance to a future Australian republic.

This would be due to the fact that a successful referendum would mean that this country’s first president would become the successor to King Charles “according to law”.

What may happen in the future doesn’t alter
the fact that MsP swear allegiance to the current Monarch and if they do not then they don’t get paid, so Republicans falsely swear allegiance, and thus perjure themselves, for the money.
It’s a matter of principal not principle.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57001
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #155 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:27pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:42pm:

This explains it very well.

"A future president would, after a successful referendum, be the lawful successor to the king who is referred to in the coronation oath."

Those who have criticised Anthony Albanese for his plan to swear allegiance to King Charles are dead wrong. The Prime Minister and every other republican can confidently recite this oath without fear of hypocrisy. And the reason is this: the coronation oath is conditional.

That condition is contained in its last four words. It might look like Albanese will simply swear allegiance to Charles and his heirs.

But the real significance is that the oath does not finish there. If it did, it would amount to an unending pledge of fealty to the senior member of the house of Windsor.

The most important part of the oath is that it requires Albanese to swear allegiance to the King’s “successors according to law”. And that might not be Prince William.

Australia makes its own laws. So the coronation oath amounts to recognition that Charles holds office as king of Australia not because of divine right, but because the law of Australia says so.

So if this country decides to become a republic, Albanese and all other republicans who take the coronation oath this weekend could consistently swear allegiance to a future Australian republic.

This would be due to the fact that a successful referendum would mean that this country’s first president would become the successor to King Charles “according to law”.

Reading on:

The real danger for a future republic is that the Albanese government might view the voice referendum as a precedent and adopt the same high-handed methods that have failed spectacularly to build national consensus.

Will we, for example, see a constitutional convention on the republic confined to republicans just as the Uluru “convention” excluded the broader community and was confined to Indigenous people?

Will the government unveil its model for a republican form of government without consultation with the broader community, just as Albanese unveiled his proposed constitutional provision for the voice without consultation with the broader community?

Will the government design its model for a republic without advice from the Solicitor-General? Will the government seek genuine national consensus on the shift to a republic or will it replicate the current tactic in which those with concerns about constitutional change have been depicted as racists?

Will it hand control of the republic referendum to the Australian Republic Movement, just as it has handed control of the voice referendum to Indigenous activists?

These are the real threats to Australian republicanism.

You always leave out the pretinent bit. Honesty would simply kill you.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14989 Armidale Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #156 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:27pm Eoin You are not still under military discipline as a civilian. MPs aren't under military law. The King is under their authority. Ask Charles I. Quod rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14989 Armidale Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #157 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:35pm Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:27pm: You always leave out the pretinent bit. Q.s about the voting process are not the same as facts of law. And q.s are less pertinent.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 150679
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #158 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:42pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:42pm:

This explains it very well.

"A future president would, after a successful referendum, be the lawful successor to the king who is referred to in the coronation oath."

Those who have criticised Anthony Albanese for his plan to swear allegiance to King Charles are dead wrong. The Prime Minister and every other republican can confidently recite this oath without fear of hypocrisy. And the reason is this: the coronation oath is conditional.

That condition is contained in its last four words. It might look like Albanese will simply swear allegiance to Charles and his heirs.

But the real significance is that the oath does not finish there. If it did, it would amount to an unending pledge of fealty to the senior member of the house of Windsor.

The most important part of the oath is that it requires Albanese to swear allegiance to the King’s “successors according to law”. And that might not be Prince William.

Australia makes its own laws. So the coronation oath amounts to recognition that Charles holds office as king of Australia not because of divine right, but because the law of Australia says so.

So if this country decides to become a republic, Albanese and all other republicans who take the coronation oath this weekend could consistently swear allegiance to a future Australian republic.

This would be due to the fact that a successful referendum would mean that this country’s first president would become the successor to King Charles “according to law”.

What may happen in the future doesn’t alter
the fact that MsP swear allegiance to the current Monarch and if they do not then they don’t get paid, so Republicans falsely swear allegiance, and thus perjure themselves, for the money.
It’s a matter of principal not principle.

Ah.

It's principal now.

So you agree, they aren't breaking the law.

Glad we finally got there.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57001
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #159 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:50pm

chimera wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:35pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:27pm:

You always leave out the pretinent bit.

Q.s about the voting process are not the same as facts of law.
And q.s are less pertinent.

Not at all.

You cannot separate republicanism from its voting/selection process.
They are the same thing.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14989 Armidale Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #160 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:58pm I have.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3576
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #161 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 8:09pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:42pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:42pm:

This explains it very well.

"A future president would, after a successful referendum, be the lawful successor to the king who is referred to in the coronation oath."

Those who have criticised Anthony Albanese for his plan to swear allegiance to King Charles are dead wrong. The Prime Minister and every other republican can confidently recite this oath without fear of hypocrisy. And the reason is this: the coronation oath is conditional.

That condition is contained in its last four words. It might look like Albanese will simply swear allegiance to Charles and his heirs.

But the real significance is that the oath does not finish there. If it did, it would amount to an unending pledge of fealty to the senior member of the house of Windsor.

The most important part of the oath is that it requires Albanese to swear allegiance to the King’s “successors according to law”. And that might not be Prince William.

Australia makes its own laws. So the coronation oath amounts to recognition that Charles holds office as king of Australia not because of divine right, but because the law of Australia says so.

So if this country decides to become a republic, Albanese and all other republicans who take the coronation oath this weekend could consistently swear allegiance to a future Australian republic.

This would be due to the fact that a successful referendum would mean that this country’s first president would become the successor to King Charles “according to law”.

What may happen in the future doesn’t alter
the fact that MsP swear allegiance to the current Monarch and if they do not then they don’t get paid, so Republicans falsely swear allegiance, and thus perjure themselves, for the money.
It’s a matter of principal not principle.

Ah.

It's principal now.

So you agree, they aren't breaking the law.

Glad we finally got there.

I think that you should look up the definition of ‘principal’.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 150679
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #162 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 8:30pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:42pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 7:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:42pm:

This explains it very well.

"A future president would, after a successful referendum, be the lawful successor to the king who is referred to in the coronation oath."

Those who have criticised Anthony Albanese for his plan to swear allegiance to King Charles are dead wrong. The Prime Minister and every other republican can confidently recite this oath without fear of hypocrisy. And the reason is this: the coronation oath is conditional.

That condition is contained in its last four words. It might look like Albanese will simply swear allegiance to Charles and his heirs.

But the real significance is that the oath does not finish there. If it did, it would amount to an unending pledge of fealty to the senior member of the house of Windsor.

The most important part of the oath is that it requires Albanese to swear allegiance to the King’s “successors according to law”. And that might not be Prince William.

Australia makes its own laws. So the coronation oath amounts to recognition that Charles holds office as king of Australia not because of divine right, but because the law of Australia says so.

So if this country decides to become a republic, Albanese and all other republicans who take the coronation oath this weekend could consistently swear allegiance to a future Australian republic.

This would be due to the fact that a successful referendum would mean that this country’s first president would become the successor to King Charles “according to law”.

What may happen in the future doesn’t alter
the fact that MsP swear allegiance to the current Monarch and if they do not then they don’t get paid, so Republicans falsely swear allegiance, and thus perjure themselves, for the money.
It’s a matter of principal not principle.

Ah.

It's principal now.

So you agree, they aren't breaking the law.

Glad we finally got there.

I think that you should look up the definition of ‘principal’.

I think you should answer this question:

If you truly believe they've broken the law, can you reference the relevant Act, and specific Section, which they allegedly could be charged under?

What's the charge and what's the penalty?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 55578 Gender:	Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy Reply #163 - Feb 27^th, 2026 at 8:33pm "Please America. Save us from the evil British. All we did was steal a loaf of bread." said the mass murderer.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14989
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Greens Call On Albanese To Cut Ties With Monarchy
Reply #164 - Feb 28^th, 2026 at 7:02am

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

I think that you should look up the definition of ‘principal’.

The constitution implies free speech by having elections.
'This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, ..etc '

The allegiance is in the constitution which directs how to alter itself. Removing the monarch needs a 'proposed law' such as the Greens comments.

(Are you Russian?)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 28^th, 2026 at 8:00am by chimera »

IP Logged