that is no joke, remember back in 80 or 70, when she recalled the election results in Australia. Then they had the election again, and of course this time the other guy won.

You'd think the queen interfering in an election would earn her more than one brief mention in the Wikipedia article. But Wiki remembers it differently than you do:

"The leader of the Opposition, Billy Snedden, was enthusiastic about the appointment and also agreed to reappoint Kerr in five years, were he prime minister at the time. Kerr then agreed to take the post, was duly appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, and was sworn in on 11 July 1974."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

We have the same system here in Canada but if such a thing happened here there would be riots in the streets. Especially Quebec and First Nations. But really anyone would be very mad and we would probably drop the monarchy that day tradition or not.

Of course monarchy is nonsense but I have a thing for pedantry like this.

TBH the nonsensical nature of monarchy works out for Australia, as it costs essentially nothing and sort of acts as a ground strap to make the idea of “head of state” rather irrelevant. Just compare to countries like France or USA where the Head of State gets capital letters and is a person with actual power.

Next best would be a president like in Germany who is basically a nonentity with less power than a GG.

> Next best would be a president like in Germany who is basically a nonentity with less power than a GG.

Meh, you're just moving the position 1 rank down. The German Chancellor (in other countries, the Prime Minister) wields all the power instead.

Plus, you know, they're only presidents. After 4-5-6-7 (x2 in some cases) years they go away.

Indeed, that is the point. But the PM can be replaced more easily than, and doesn't have the same focus of attention of, the head of state. Best is when the two are muddled, as in the German case.

I've lived in Australia, USA, France and Germany so have some idea of the spectrum of options.

I generally favor the American-style presidential system over the British-style parliamentary system, but I think one flaw of the American one is that it combines the roles of the dignified and the efficient, often conflicting with each other, into one office.

The French semi-presidential system is a little weird, with technically the prime minister being the head of government, but the president still wields most of the executive power.

I’m not so sure. If that were the case, why not drop it now? There is nothing virtuous about the tradition.

What does this even mean? It's not like G-Gs the world over consult with Buckingham Palace before every action. Kerr acted as he believed was the correct course. You may or may not agree, but the 1975 dismissal was not a case of that Governor-General somehow cheating to get away with a flagrant violation of the rules G-Gs follow.

More to the point, Australians did not agree with your interpretation. The Coalition won the biggest majority in history in the federal election called one month after the dismissal. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_federal_electi...>

>We have the same system here in Canada but if such a thing happened here there would be riots in the streets.

The same thing did happen in Canada. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair> No riots.

Yet again, a Canadian (thinks he) knows more about other countries' affairs than his own. I can guarantee that Canadians as a whole were more aware of Trump winning the 2016 US presidential election by earning more electoral votes than Hillary despite receiving fewer popular votes, than the fact that the same thing (of one party forming a federal government by winning the most seats, despite winning fewer popular votes than another) had happened several times in Canadian history, such as in 1979. I doubt that this has changed even though this happened again in the two most recent federal elections to Trudeau's benefit.

On behalf of Canadians I'm sorry about whatever it is that we did to make you feel this way.

Yeah there's a story there.

Plus their apparent belief in having mind reading abilities is disturbing.

[1] Or The Dismissal, depending on who you ask

Of course, life turned out differently, but aristocratic claims are quite crazy. Who's the current King of Jerusalem, again? :-D

The thing to remember is that nations and nationalism are the centrepiece concept of politics today, but this is new.

Medieval politics was all about kings, lords and lordships. Not nations. National sentiments may have played roles, but secondary. Like the role race, class, ideology or whatnot today. Important, but nowhere near as central as nations.

The King of England wasn't very English much of the time.

The competing claims on england & france originate with Normans. They were if scandi origin, became powerful in France. They conquered England, Jerusalem, Cyprus, parts of Italy, etc. England became the house's important, long term procession... but they weren't English. They spoke french and claimed Viking ancestry.

Circa 1800 was a transitional period. Republican nationalism was exploding. Being a German house (Hanover) ruling England was becoming an issue. Royals started to adopt (previously derided) English folkishness. They raised their children in English, started speaking in a native accent, eating English foods and publicly participating in English activities.

You can still see this today, with British royals engaged in symbolic national "customs" like Scottish tartanry, Welsh language or whatever.

England wasn't claiming lordship over France. The king of England was. Up to 1800-ish, the king himself wasn't English. Not culturally and not by self-definition.

You know a title is too long if you have to resort to "etc." in official documents.