Australian Politics Forum - Secular State?

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138471
Gender: male

Secular State?
Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:55am

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

"The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland," the website said. "The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession."

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 47173
Gender: male

Re: Secular State?
Reply #1 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 12:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:55am:

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

"The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland," the website said. "The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession."

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.

The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.

The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.

Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.

The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.

The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
https://www.royal.uk/succession

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 106020 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Secular State? Reply #2 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:04pm Why is it Protestant? It was all about being against the Roman Catholic Inquisition which murdered millions of people in Europe.
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 11766
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Secular State?
Reply #3 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:23pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 10:55am:

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion,

Canberra says nothing about the London monarch's weird religion.The Constitution says nothing about the GG religion. It says nothing about any Australian's faith (except for conscripting them to kill Vietcong and charging $20 for not voting unless they're not old enough to vote but can shoot Vietnamese).

Now of course the Vietcong's Hoa Phat steel-mill is getting ready to import iron ore from its new mine in the Northern Territory. The Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, Lib /Nationals, has granted approval for Hoa Phat to buy Roper River. The Protestants may march on Parliament House with its Reds under the beds.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:34pm by chimera »

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12844
Gender: male

Re: Secular State?
Reply #4 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:34pm

Frank wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 12:54pm:

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

Ha ha! There's the monarchy's story and then there's the truth.

No mention of Parliament inviting Willam of Orange to raise an army and invade England to depose James (which William did) and reign as King of England and Scotland.

James II fled for his life (as the then-future Charles II had to do only a handful of years before, because of Cromwell).

Parliament determined by fiat that James II abandoned his throne.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 47173 Gender:	Re: Secular State? Reply #5 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:35pm Bobby. wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:04pm: Why is it Protestant? It was all about being against the Roman Catholic Inquisition which murdered millions of people in Europe. Cheeses, Bobby.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 47173
Gender: male

Re: Secular State?
Reply #6 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:42pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 12:54pm:

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

Ha ha! There's the monarchy's story and then there's the truth.

No mention of Parliament inviting Willam of Orange to raise an army and invade England to depose James (which William did) and reign as King of England and Scotland.

James II fled for his life (as the then-future Charles II had to do only a handful of years before, because of Cromwell).

Parliament determined by fiat that James II abandoned his throne.

This letter was signed by seven English noblemen known as the ‘Immortal Seven’ who invited William of Orange to be King of England to depose King James II (1685-88). In the letter, ‘35’ was a secret code for Edward Russell, Admiral of the Fleet and leading politician. James II was unpopular because of his support of the Catholic religion. William of Orange was married to Mary, eldest daughter of James II by his first marriage to Anne Hyde. Mary had been brought up as a Protestant. When James married again, and his wife Mary of Modena gave birth to a son, James Francis Edward Stuart, the ‘Young Pretender’, fears grew for the creation of a Catholic monarchy. William of Orange arrived in England in November 1688 and faced little opposition, the event became known as the Glorious Revolution.

Transcript
June the 30th 1688

We have great satisfaction to find by 35, and since by M. Zulestein, that your Highness is so ready and willing to give us such assistances as they have related to us. We have great reason to believe that we shall be every day in a worse condition than we are and less able to defend ourselves, and therefore we do earnestly wish we might be so happy as to find a remedy before it be too late for us to contribute to our own deliverance; but although these be our wishes yet we will by no means put your Highness into any expectations which may misguide your own counsels in this matter, so that the best advice we can give is to inform your Highness truly both of the state of things here at this time and of the difficulties which appear to us. As to the first, the people are so generally dissatisfied with the present conduct of the Government in relation to their religion, liberties, and properties (all which have been greatly invaded), and they are in such expectation of their prospects being daily worse that your Highness may be assured there are nineteen parts of twenty of the people throughout the Kingdom who are desirous of a change;

Simplified transcript
We are so pleased to hear that your Highness is willing to help us. We strongly believe that England gets worse by the day and we need to protect ourselves before it is too late. We don’t want to give the wrong picture about things and think it is best to explain what is happening. First of all, the people are very unhappy with the present Government which threatens their religion, freedom and property daily. You can believe that 19 out of 20 people want a change of king…
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/significant-events/glori...

Back to top

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

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 11766 Armidale Gender:	Re: Secular State? Reply #7 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:51pm Advice and Consent. To the high and mighty James II, top of the toffs. May your humble and obedient knaves, churls and knights advise His Majesty to nick off. Please. Consent. We hereby consent to nicking off. God Save the new whats his name.
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12844
Gender: male

Re: Secular State?
Reply #8 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 3:19pm

Frank wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:42pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 1:34pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 12^th, 2022 at 12:54pm:

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

Ha ha! There's the monarchy's story and then there's the truth.

No mention of Parliament inviting Willam of Orange to raise an army and invade England to depose James (which William did) and reign as King of England and Scotland.

James II fled for his life (as the then-future Charles II had to do only a handful of years before, because of Cromwell).

Parliament determined by fiat that James II abandoned his throne.

This letter was signed by seven English noblemen known as the ‘Immortal Seven’ who invited William of Orange to be King of England to depose King James II (1685-88). In the letter, ‘35’ was a secret code for Edward Russell, Admiral of the Fleet and leading politician. James II was unpopular because of his support of the Catholic religion. William of Orange was married to Mary, eldest daughter of James II by his first marriage to Anne Hyde. Mary had been brought up as a Protestant. When James married again, and his wife Mary of Modena gave birth to a son, James Francis Edward Stuart, the ‘Young Pretender’, fears grew for the creation of a Catholic monarchy. William of Orange arrived in England in November 1688 and faced little opposition, the event became known as the Glorious Revolution.

None of which would have been possible without the approval of parliamentarians.

Of course, had it failed, they'd have all been hanged for treason - tends to take the spunk out of many politicians.

19 out of 20 people want a change of king, eh! They were doing polls back then? Or were they referring to 20 people? Or 95% of parliamentarians?

Anyway, it ultimately made parliament sovereign over the body of the monarch.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 11766 Armidale Gender:	Re: Secular State? Reply #9 - Sep 12^th, 2022 at 3:26pm Sometimes a good, skilful sword-cut does it as when Henry VII won the throne when he was nobody much. Or just being number 42 in line if your Protestant prayers passed through Parliament's vote. Sometimes I suspect that a'royal' may not be different from other humans but that must be a mistaken idea.
Back to top	IP Logged