The Royal Family

Just ignore turdall he’s just think he’s a know it all. I agree with you completely. I thought they handled it well. But damned if you do and dambed if you don’t, according to Turdall.

Steady on. He’s admitted he mixed things up, no need for that.

2 Likes

Agree - we all make mistakes - no one here is perfect.

1 Like

Look the thing about Turdall is that he is extremely passionate and opinionated. I actually really respect him because he backs himself and his opinions even if I don’t agree with him most of the time.

3 Likes

People in glass houses… :laughing:

3 Likes

Literally the opposite of what I said but love you too Daniel. Hope your day wasn’t bad. Seems like you might have been having a shit day.

Now we’re literally entering the complete joke category for Thorpe. She’s just digging her own pit deeper for herself to be buried under before long.

2 Likes

If this can be proven true does that mean she legally or officially, whatever, isn’t or wasn’t sworn in?

If she didn’t recite the correct oath then she can actually be removed then right?

3 Likes

The Constitution requires them to take the oath, however, there is no clear punishment for failing to take the oath.

It could be challenged in court that since she did not take the oath, she could not be eligible to sit in Parliament until she has taken the oath, however, it would be very difficult to have her removed as not saying the oath isn’t listed in one of the reasons for a MP to be disqualified - especially since there is no set precedent that can be followed with this scenario.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

1 Like

Ya Gotta Hope

2 Likes

If it were proven, which I think might be difficult, she would not be able to take her seat until she had sworn the right affirmation. The major problem is that she was sworn in two years ago and the affirmation was accepted by the Senate President. If there were an issue with the affirmation, it should have been brought up at the time. As Anne Twomey mentions in the article as well, she did sign a copy of the affirmation, so even if Thorpe thinks she didn’t agree to it, she has affirmed her loyalty to the heirs and successors.

She would still be a Senator, she would just be made to take the affirmation again before she would be allowed to sit. She has not met the benchmarks outlined in Section 44 to be disqualified.

2 Likes

God I hope so.

I get the feeling she’s trying to do a bit of backtracking this morning. She might have realised she went to far, or more likely that she might think there could actually be consequences, and is trying to save her own skin. Either way, I wouldn’t trust a single thing she says.

1 Like

Thought this was a good summary

Include the following that I’ve also heard elsewhere that Thorpe has signed a written allegiance.

Orr believes Thorpe’s remarks are unlikely to jeopardise her parliamentary seat, as she has signed a written oath.

"It’s not as heavy as in centuries past when there was a shared belief in the immortal soul that God would punish you if you made a false oath.

"She [Thorpe] has also had to subscribe, which is just a Latin word that means to write under. So, she has actually signed the allegiance.

“Crossing fingers behind your back or thinking you are pronouncing words a bit cute doesn’t mean the oath is not made once uttered or subscribed. It doesn’t have any formal consequences, but it would feed into any broader censure motion.”

2 Likes

So what is the punishment for not fulfilling the oath?

There is nothing in the constitution that says not taking the oath is an offence, and as many constitutional experts have pointed out, she did sign a document with the oath.

But is there anything they can do for breaking the oath?

1 Like

So the oath is purely ceremonial and holds no value here in Australia. It continues to beg the question why we continue to have the royal family.

3 Likes

Yes it does.

Regardless of Thorpe’s outrageous behaviour, this Royal tour has really hit home to me how little interest I have in them or in Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy. Yes stay in the Commonwealth, but the King as head of state has to go.

1 Like