So who is watching the King’s Coronation or are you there

[Princess Fiona]

Doesn't the title of King always mean they are the designated Monarch?

Yes I believe so.
But JohnK seemed to think it was some strange British tradition for the male spouse of a Queen not to be called King whereas the female spouse of a King is called Queen.

Just pointing out that it’s convention in a lot of royal families.

 

[OZDUCK]

I am for an Australian Republic but I happily watched this because it was simply a good show. There were animals and children to steal the limelight plus music and singing all with beautiful costumes. A villain in Andrew who we could hiss at. A commoner who married her University sweetheart and will eventually become a Queen. The redemption story of someone who was disparaged as a wicked woman who stole a Prince away from his wife but who is now the Queen Consort and apparently well liked. The Greta Garbo of royalty who just wants to be left alone as long as he isn't ignored. The ageing understudy who finally gets his chance to be the star. We even had some science fiction as people were arrested for future crimes, as in the film "Minority Report", because police 'knew' that they were thinking about doing something criminal.

What more could you want for entertainment?

 

[justinbrett]

Doesn't the title of King always mean they are the designated Monarch?

With a rare exception - a Jure uxoris King (basically means King Consort). It's back to the title vs position thing.

Example -

King Felipe II was the King of Spain, but married Queen Mary - the Queen of England, making him King Consort of England (though the term is actually Jure uxoris King). But he wasn't the King of England. It also made Mary Queen Consort of Spain.

If he wasn't already a King, he would have been made a Prince of England - but you can't be a King and a Prince at the same time. These titles meant something to foreigners - which is why Queen Victoria wanted to be an Empress so she wasn't outranked.

 

[Franky]

How can you be so certain? Last year it was 3.1 million for AFL and 2.8 million for NRL Both codes vary from year to year (2022 was a bad year for both) and while AFL is usually more, the difference is in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

The ratings for the Coronation have been split by channel but overall look to be in the 2-3 million band.

Well - I did say ‘I would guess’…

 

[justinbrett]

Well - I did say ‘I would guess’…

Can you guess with certainty?

 

[Franky]

Can you guess with certainty?

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?. Or is that just guessing again??

 

[anyonebutqantas]

It's actually quite progressive when you think about it that European nations (including UK/England) had female monarchs centuries before female citizens could vote.

International Women's Day always includes calls for more women in leadership. The best example was the Queen being the sovereign for 70 years. More awards for female leadership should be named after QEII.

 

[justinbrett]

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?. Or is that just guessing again??

Well you said you guess that the AFL may out rate the Coronation - but certainly not the NRL.

So I read that that you guess about the AFL, but you're certain about the NRL.

I don't know how you can be certain when the ratings difference between the AFL & NRL are measured in the 100Ks, not millions, and in any case both codes can be +/- 1 million on a given year.

 

[gaz0303]

The light/drone show at the concert was amazing, especially during the segment on the environment. Hard to see fireworks being able to compete at big celebrations from now on.

Surprised that Charles has done over 10000 official events in the last 20 years.

 

[Forg]

The light/drone show at the concert was amazing

*mental image of monarchists buzzing around, attracted by the bright lights*

 

[TheRealTMA]

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?. Or is that just guessing again??

Oxymorons are usually two words. Except in the case of Intuition.

 

[Skyring]

All MPs, including republicans, swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign every term (and on change of sovereign)- the wording is the same as what was used during the coronation.

It's in the Constitution. Regardless of one's opinions, MPs have to swear allegiance as part of the job. Doesn't seem to stop republicans running for parliament. And a good thing too. We need a wide range of opinions to keep the public debate open and relevant. Australia has changed over the years and we are no longer the British monoculture we were when I was a kid.

 

[Skyring]

…whilst I disagree that we should have a foreigner as our own head of state…

The position of head of state is a matter of opinion. The Governor-General says he is, and the King doesn't.

It's not actually defined anywhere in any Australian law. I take Charles de Gaulle's position that the President of France should embody a certain idea of France as French head of state, and translating that to Australia, Charles III cannot possibly present himself as embodying any notion of Australia.

In reality, "head of state" is a diplomatic term rather than anything defined in law.

Australian Governors-General have been making head of state visits overseas since Whitlam's time. Diplomatic credentials have been addressed to the Governor-General in his own right for many years. The UN diplomatically lists both monarch and GG in their "Blue Book"

Referendum or not, we've been walking steadily further away from Buckingham Palace since Federation. Every now and then the High Court takes another formal step on the path and we don't need to change the wording of the Constitution because it has been reinterpreted.

For example, we are now an independent nation because the High Court decided this when asked if Heather Hill, a dual Australian and British citizen, was eligible to take her Senate seat. Not a word in the Constitution was changed but although we had British - and Canadian and New Zealand - MPs in our early days, they have to renounce all other allegiances now.

I think as time goes by more and more Australians will accept that the Australian Governor-General is doing a fine job as Australian head of state. And the "King of Australia" isn't.

 

[JohnK]

Yes I believe so.
But JohnK seemed to think it was some strange British tradition for the male spouse of a Queen not to be called King whereas the female spouse of a King is called Queen.

Just pointing out that it’s convention in a lot of royal families.

I think it's strange and also inconsistent. A male spouse is a prince but a female spouse is a queen.

One to add to the equality argument.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I think it's strange and also inconsistent. A male spouse is a prince but a female spouse is a queen.

One to add to the equality argument.

But not a British anomaly clearly

 

[justinbrett]

I think as time goes by more and more Australians will accept that the Australian Governor-General is doing a fine job as Australian head of state. And the "King of Australia" isn't.

It's never been about how good a job they've been doing (we've had a great Queen and a bad GG in the past), the million dollar question is how do you appoint the head of state and keep it an apolitical position.

 

[Quickstatus]

we don't need to change the wording of the Constitution because it has been reinterpreted.

I'm not a fan of "reintepretation" being placed in the hands of the unelected.

Change it but do it the proper way...

 

[anyonebutqantas]

The light/drone show at the concert was amazing, especially during the segment on the environment. Hard to see fireworks being able to compete at big celebrations from now on.

Surprised that Charles has done over 10000 official events in the last 20 years.

Shows how hardworking the royals are and exposes the whingers who complain about cost etc.

The position of head of state is a matter of opinion. The Governor-General says he is, and the King doesn't.

It's not actually defined anywhere in any Australian law. I take Charles de Gaulle's position that the President of France should embody a certain idea of France as French head of state, and translating that to Australia, Charles III cannot possibly present himself as embodying any notion of Australia.

Why not? King Charles is a fine servant of Australia.

 

[Anna]

A male spouse is a prince

If you're referring to Prince Philip, he was already a prince before he married Princess Elizabeth the future queen. He was a prince of the Greek and Danish royal families. He didn't become a prince because of who his wife was. He was given the title Duke of Edinburgh on their marriage.

Prince Henrik of Denmark only formally got the title 'Prince Consort' in 2005 after throwing a massive tanty in 2002 and running home to France for 3 weeks. When he married Margrethe in 1967 he was not a prince, and when she became queen in 1972 it was the first time a Danish queen had a husband. So there was no Danish precedent for what he should be called. He became Prince Henrik as the solution. At that time the Dutch queens Wilhelmina and Juliana (and subsequently Beatrix) had had husbands who were princes but I'm not sure if they were already princes of some obscure European place/s or whether they were made princes on marrying into the Dutch royal family.

Anyway I don't think there are any hard rules about it.

 

[justinbrett]

He didn't become a prince because of who his wife was.

Half true in that he was already a prince, but he stopped using those titles when he became engaged. He was later (4 years after coronation) made a Prince of the United Kingdom by QEII.

I suspect if it was to happen today that ceremony would take place pretty close to, if not on the day of coronation.