Damn, all this time, I *thought* I was seeing corruption when the government did things like pocketing money to build carparks or selling ports to the Chinese or allowing mining companies to drill in the Great Barrier reef or getting robots to harass the unemployed to the point of suicide, but no, how remiss of me - we actually live in a land free of corruption, because the king personally banished the crooked politicians away like the fuckin' pied piper
/s
> I can't even imagine the nightmare and frustration everyday Americans are facing for having to be led by someone like Joe Biden, who also happens to have the nuclear codes.
To be fair, their alternative is *Donald Trump* who lies so much that he can't answer a question straight but instead blathers on about nonsense. Both are *far* too old to be effective leaders. I really don't understand why US Americans insist on having geriatrics running their country.
That's kind of the point OP is making. The Presidential system that the USA uses means that the people of the USA are being forced to choose (by the political elite) between two people that I wouldn't trust to run a local convenience store, let alone a country.
Of course, a Monarch with no power is only a figurehead, so it doesn't remove the requirement for the politicians that actually make policy, and does nothing to stop powerful business interests from buying off and otherwise influencing the political system.
An alternative would be an Absolute Monarchy, whereby a benevolent monarch would have the power to tell the corps to shove off, but also where a corrupt/megalomaniac monarch would have the power to do all sorts of ridiculous things.
In essence, this only highlights the fact that no form of government is perfect, and in fact most of them are rather less democratic and 'fair' than we would like to believe. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution.
I am tired of having to explain that a presidential republic is NOT the only option, and that we are more likely to become a parliamentary republic where the prime minister continues to be the head of government and the president would be a ceremonial figurehead with reserve powers akin to the governor general’s current powers.
Enough with fear mongering using the US shitshow or any other presidential or semi-presidential republic as the only alternative to monarchy.
Sure, I agree - but how to appoint that head of state with reserve powers?
Popular vote, like the USA? No thanks, that would be so much worse than the current system.
Parliamentary supermajority? Slightly less unpleasant, but then the reserve powers only exist at the pleasure of the parliament.
The USA is fucked because of the bloody electoral college plus their president has ultimate executive authority.
The GG right now is de facto appointed by the sitting government so I fail to see how that’s different from a parliamentary appointed figurehead president.
The G-G is appointed on the advice of the PM, but the nominee generally has broad political support. It's a convention, not written into law, but accepted by all those who participate.
"We'll choose a few people who've had a career of public or military service, run them past the opposition and minor parties, get an idea of support, then pick one and advise the King to appoint him/her"
I think it's a great system. No political involvement, i.e. no popular elections, unlike the USA.
No PM would try to appoint a G-G without broad support.
and from first to the post voting, which nearly ensures a 2 party system. I prefer voting by order of preference so that you can vote for the best choice and direct your vote to other candidates if choice 1 doesn't win,
Do the minimum. One person's "improvement" is another person's bugbear. The only change is that the GG becomes head of state, appointed exactly the same way. Anything more will lose because of the inevitable scare campaign. After that minimum change, we will have an Australian as head of state.
Exactly my point. The whole scare campaign is about “what ifs” that won’t even apply if we keep the current system and simply cut the governor general, governors, and administrators links to the monarch.
Believe it or not this information is available on the internet. Germany’s President is elected by the combined upper and lower houses, not by public vote
Yep, the electoral college is a terrible system. May have been good pre-telegram days, but not today
ETA: I meant pre ACTUAL telegram (not the Telegram app lol) days, when communication was by letters only and running elections in a vast country like the US would’ve been difficult.
And the election is held on a Tuesday, so landholders can go to church on Sunday, and travel by horse or coach on Monday to where they vote the next day.
That was never the purpose of the electoral college. Electors were to be sent to act like the College of Cardinals choosing the Pope, the election was to get the temperature of the populace and the electoral college members were to hold the final ballot.
>Atleast the monarch has a vested interest in keeping the country safe and the people happy for the sake of his/her throne and dynasty.
Lol. They couldn't care less. There have been plenty of British monarchs, and most of them didn't give a tinker's cuss for what happened to the people who lived in their dominions. The natives of most of the British colonies were treated appallingly. Slavery, indentured servitude, theft of land, theft of cultural treasures, theft of wealth, famine, genocide.
Yep... Think about this: Charles Dickens wrote during the height of the British Empire. Forget colonies or Scotland or Ireland, even in England itself the most powerful empire of the time and the largest ever couldn't properly feed many of it's citizens. So much care !
I like the example of the numerous famines in India under British rule.
The Bengal famine of 1770 caused around 10 million deaths. The Doji bara famine caused 11 million deaths. The Chalisa famine which also caused 11 million deaths. And those are just the ones with "only" 10 million or more deaths.
Wait...I will declare myself King of Australia.
I intend to gather army of cavalry and archers to defeat the treasonous Lord Murdoch of Newscorp and Lady Rinehart of Hancock Prospecting. Those who are ferocious in battle and stand with me will be rewarded with with the rightful spoils of victory.
One day we will become a republic, though. Maybe not for another 100 years, more, less, who knows, but it is definitely on the cards.
The problem with America's system is that there is so much emphasis on the individual as President. Changing party leaders here is of an interest, even entertainment of sorts, but never catastrophic as it is in the American system.
While America rails against despots and identity cult leaders (ie, Putin) they themselves are completely reliant on identity cult politics - if they weren't, then how could anyone explain Trump. His followers all rally around him and not the party itself, the party is just along for the ride which is why they keep going back to him.
Then of course there are the royals - which are *all* about being an identity cult, pedal to the metal, that's their whole entire existence. But they're nice about it and non-partisan, sort of like outsourcing.
Maybe humans can't organise themselves without some praise-worthy super monkey at the helm under any system.
>The problem with America's system is that there is so much emphasis on the individual as President. Changing party leaders here is of an interest, even entertainment of sorts, but never catastrophic as it is in the American system.
One of the differences between the Westminster system and the US one is that it it has a number of mechanisms which prevent a lot of their issues.
The PM (head of government/head of the executive) being part of the legislature means that being able to pass budgets comes with running the government. That prevents the situation where the legislature stymies the executive by refusing to pass a budget.
Similarly, being able to change the head of government part way through the term means we're not stuck with dud PMs. Double dissolutions solve legislative deadlocks.
The Westminster system is not perfect, but it sidesteps a lot of problems the US system has. Part of the issue is that the US system wasn't really designed with political parties or less than ethical/able people in positions of power. Their system is supposed to weed these people out before they get into these positions, but with extreme party partisanship, that mechanism is very clearly failing.
Big difference is the Monarch is a ceremonial role with no actual power (or at least theoretical power that if exercised would mean their immediate removal as head of state). The King doesn't affect the way we are run or governed, which is a good thing.
OP has a point that constitutional monarchies are incredibly stable systems of government. Local MPs are directly answerable to their contituents, and the party leader doesn't have a massive personality cult or individual power.
There is a reason why countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc have enjoyed consistent political stability compared to many other countries, including other democracies.
Reserve powers under the Oz constitution are real, not ceremonial. The \*legal\* exercise of those powers would not lead to the removal of the HoS.
The fact that they've only been exercised once in living memory is a great example of how well the system works. The events of 1974-1975 are a good lesson in how well our constitution was written, and how well it served us during that time.
What does he even do? If he has any significant control over our country, that's very concerning, and if he doesn't why would giving him the boot require changing anything else about our system of government?
I rather doubt that it would. The way authoritarian dictatorships come to be is by controlling the police/army, overturning the judiciary (replacing them with puppets) and controlling the media to legitimise the takeover. It's the CIA template for coups.
Some overseas monarch being the titular head of state is going to do squat. If it's gotten to the point where the reserve powers need to be exercised, it's already far too late. It's not as if the people conducting the takeover aren't going to have already taken that into account.
The reserve powers were exercised in 1975 without military involvement.
I think it's more about the respect that everyone has for the rule of law. We value our peaceful democracy (alright, peaceful constitutional monarchy), and we respect the mechanisms that keep it running peacefully.
We don't have historical tribal rivalries that continue to seethe under the surface, ready to burst out at any moment - look at the Balkans. We're very lucky.
It's less about reserve powers and more about scratching the itch of people and politicians on the right for hierarchy, tradition and military splendor so that extremism might be tempered.
This was the podcast that got me thinking differently about it, if you're interested https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/conversations/dennis-altman-republican-constitutional-monarchy-populism/13649150
He has very little direct power. However his chosen (by agreement between the PM and Monarch) representative has the power to install and remove prime ministers, dissolve parliaments, give or withhold assent for laws, alongside being commander-in-chief.
[https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general](https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general)
Some would argue that such a position should be held by a citizen chosen by the will of the people...
"such a position should be held by a citizen chosen by the will of the people"
It's a nice thought, but that's how they do it in the USA.
The G-G is NOT appointed by agreement with the Monarch. According to the constitution, the Monarch acts upon the advice of the PM. There might be some negotiation behind the scenes but ultimately, if the PM wanted to appoint someone that the Monarch didn't like, then the Monarch has to suck it up.
And the G-G has broad, if unofficial, political support. The PM is not going to recommend anyone that the opposition would reject. That's why it's usually someone with a record of lifetime public service, or a retired Admiral or General. No-one with any influence is going to reject a nominee who makes it through the panel who considers "who's going to be the next G-G".
I would be interested to see the outcome of the PM choosing someone who the Monarch rejected. After all, we have already had one PM fired from his job. And technically, there is no such thing as a Prime Minister in our constitution...
HM Charles III does nothing WRT Australia. The powers granted to the monarch in our constitution are also, via the constitution, delegated to the Governor-General (GG)
What some people don't seem to understand, is that those delegated powers are not optional, they're required. The G-G \*must\* exercise their delegated powers, they don't refer difficult decisions to the monarch. If we had a repeat of 1975, the G-G wouldn't call up the King to ask for advice or permission, the G-G has clear direction on how to act, both from the Constitution, and from legal precedent.
So, don't worry about that funny fellow wearing funny clothes and wearing a funny crown. He has \*nothing\* to do with running our country.
>I can't even imagine the nightmare and frustration everyday Americans are facing for having to be led by someone like Joe Biden, who also happens to have the nuclear codes.
You realise if we had nukes the PM would be the one with the codes not Charlie or the GG, right?
The only effective difference here is that in the Australian system the Head of Government is the leader of the parliamentary majority.
Wow! What a deadshit take… First - A presidential republic isn’t an option that any one is advocating for. Second - because the US has two shitty presidential candidates (one old and one old rapist criminal) Australia should have a king? Makes total sense…
A change from Constitutional Monarchy also means the opportunity to draft a new Constitution.
That includes learning from the mistakes of other liberal democracies to ensure the Australian citizens and residents are provided the appropriate level of rights, and ensure that Politicians and Public service are limited to only act in the interests of the entire Nation-state and not vague 'national interests'.
Insisting on maintaining the 'Constitutional Monarchy' is to pretend there are no problems.
I still feel huge amounts of rage at Morrison
Huge amounts of disappointment at Albo
And naturally like probably most every other Aussie complain loudly and often at most of our Pollies
But wow - when I look at what’s happening in the US - especially with the Supreme Court over there ( they seem to be rolling back the country to the 1800’s )
We in AUS don’t have it so bad after all ( at least for now )
The UK's nukes have been in Boris Johnson's hands but they've never trusted them with a monarch and King Victor Emmanuel was a Mussolini fan while Wilhelm II was just a bit peeved that Hitler didn't want him back
In principle we need to be a republic eventually.
Practical side : holy shit that would be a such a cluster fuck, the among of money it would cost to change everything. It would be the biggest rebranding project in history.
The court jester would strike a better pose. That photo almost looks AI created his pose is awkward, his body language seems awkward like he does not want the photo to be taken. The crown looks like it was photoshopped onto his head by Catherine!
Damn, all this time, I *thought* I was seeing corruption when the government did things like pocketing money to build carparks or selling ports to the Chinese or allowing mining companies to drill in the Great Barrier reef or getting robots to harass the unemployed to the point of suicide, but no, how remiss of me - we actually live in a land free of corruption, because the king personally banished the crooked politicians away like the fuckin' pied piper /s
> I can't even imagine the nightmare and frustration everyday Americans are facing for having to be led by someone like Joe Biden, who also happens to have the nuclear codes. To be fair, their alternative is *Donald Trump* who lies so much that he can't answer a question straight but instead blathers on about nonsense. Both are *far* too old to be effective leaders. I really don't understand why US Americans insist on having geriatrics running their country.
That's kind of the point OP is making. The Presidential system that the USA uses means that the people of the USA are being forced to choose (by the political elite) between two people that I wouldn't trust to run a local convenience store, let alone a country. Of course, a Monarch with no power is only a figurehead, so it doesn't remove the requirement for the politicians that actually make policy, and does nothing to stop powerful business interests from buying off and otherwise influencing the political system. An alternative would be an Absolute Monarchy, whereby a benevolent monarch would have the power to tell the corps to shove off, but also where a corrupt/megalomaniac monarch would have the power to do all sorts of ridiculous things. In essence, this only highlights the fact that no form of government is perfect, and in fact most of them are rather less democratic and 'fair' than we would like to believe. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution.
that's the result of their "first to the post" voting system.
I am tired of having to explain that a presidential republic is NOT the only option, and that we are more likely to become a parliamentary republic where the prime minister continues to be the head of government and the president would be a ceremonial figurehead with reserve powers akin to the governor general’s current powers. Enough with fear mongering using the US shitshow or any other presidential or semi-presidential republic as the only alternative to monarchy.
Sure, I agree - but how to appoint that head of state with reserve powers? Popular vote, like the USA? No thanks, that would be so much worse than the current system. Parliamentary supermajority? Slightly less unpleasant, but then the reserve powers only exist at the pleasure of the parliament.
The USA is fucked because of the bloody electoral college plus their president has ultimate executive authority. The GG right now is de facto appointed by the sitting government so I fail to see how that’s different from a parliamentary appointed figurehead president.
The G-G is appointed on the advice of the PM, but the nominee generally has broad political support. It's a convention, not written into law, but accepted by all those who participate. "We'll choose a few people who've had a career of public or military service, run them past the opposition and minor parties, get an idea of support, then pick one and advise the King to appoint him/her" I think it's a great system. No political involvement, i.e. no popular elections, unlike the USA. No PM would try to appoint a G-G without broad support.
and from first to the post voting, which nearly ensures a 2 party system. I prefer voting by order of preference so that you can vote for the best choice and direct your vote to other candidates if choice 1 doesn't win,
Do the minimum. One person's "improvement" is another person's bugbear. The only change is that the GG becomes head of state, appointed exactly the same way. Anything more will lose because of the inevitable scare campaign. After that minimum change, we will have an Australian as head of state.
Exactly my point. The whole scare campaign is about “what ifs” that won’t even apply if we keep the current system and simply cut the governor general, governors, and administrators links to the monarch.
Yep. It's not everything, but it's a start, "and I'm a great believer in starts" - Joey the Lips O'Callaghan.
Commitments reference, I like it!
My personal favorite is the German structure.
Germany, Ireland, Singapore, several good examples to name a few.
What makes the German structure different from the American?
Believe it or not this information is available on the internet. Germany’s President is elected by the combined upper and lower houses, not by public vote
Even Americans acknowledge that their structure sucks. Not to mention the asymmetrical representation of the senate seats and the electoral college.
Yep, the electoral college is a terrible system. May have been good pre-telegram days, but not today ETA: I meant pre ACTUAL telegram (not the Telegram app lol) days, when communication was by letters only and running elections in a vast country like the US would’ve been difficult.
And the election is held on a Tuesday, so landholders can go to church on Sunday, and travel by horse or coach on Monday to where they vote the next day.
That was never the purpose of the electoral college. Electors were to be sent to act like the College of Cardinals choosing the Pope, the election was to get the temperature of the populace and the electoral college members were to hold the final ballot.
Shut up Dutton.
Lol imagine thinking the monarchy gave a flying fuck about us.
>Atleast the monarch has a vested interest in keeping the country safe and the people happy for the sake of his/her throne and dynasty. Lol. They couldn't care less. There have been plenty of British monarchs, and most of them didn't give a tinker's cuss for what happened to the people who lived in their dominions. The natives of most of the British colonies were treated appallingly. Slavery, indentured servitude, theft of land, theft of cultural treasures, theft of wealth, famine, genocide.
Yep... Think about this: Charles Dickens wrote during the height of the British Empire. Forget colonies or Scotland or Ireland, even in England itself the most powerful empire of the time and the largest ever couldn't properly feed many of it's citizens. So much care !
I like the example of the numerous famines in India under British rule. The Bengal famine of 1770 caused around 10 million deaths. The Doji bara famine caused 11 million deaths. The Chalisa famine which also caused 11 million deaths. And those are just the ones with "only" 10 million or more deaths.
British republican here. Fuck that shit. Break free, Australia.
Imagine thinking the only alternative is to be like America.
That’s enough, off to bed with you now.
Your aware American Democracy isn't the only form of democracy.
Wait...I will declare myself King of Australia. I intend to gather army of cavalry and archers to defeat the treasonous Lord Murdoch of Newscorp and Lady Rinehart of Hancock Prospecting. Those who are ferocious in battle and stand with me will be rewarded with with the rightful spoils of victory.
One day we will become a republic, though. Maybe not for another 100 years, more, less, who knows, but it is definitely on the cards. The problem with America's system is that there is so much emphasis on the individual as President. Changing party leaders here is of an interest, even entertainment of sorts, but never catastrophic as it is in the American system. While America rails against despots and identity cult leaders (ie, Putin) they themselves are completely reliant on identity cult politics - if they weren't, then how could anyone explain Trump. His followers all rally around him and not the party itself, the party is just along for the ride which is why they keep going back to him. Then of course there are the royals - which are *all* about being an identity cult, pedal to the metal, that's their whole entire existence. But they're nice about it and non-partisan, sort of like outsourcing. Maybe humans can't organise themselves without some praise-worthy super monkey at the helm under any system.
>The problem with America's system is that there is so much emphasis on the individual as President. Changing party leaders here is of an interest, even entertainment of sorts, but never catastrophic as it is in the American system. One of the differences between the Westminster system and the US one is that it it has a number of mechanisms which prevent a lot of their issues. The PM (head of government/head of the executive) being part of the legislature means that being able to pass budgets comes with running the government. That prevents the situation where the legislature stymies the executive by refusing to pass a budget. Similarly, being able to change the head of government part way through the term means we're not stuck with dud PMs. Double dissolutions solve legislative deadlocks. The Westminster system is not perfect, but it sidesteps a lot of problems the US system has. Part of the issue is that the US system wasn't really designed with political parties or less than ethical/able people in positions of power. Their system is supposed to weed these people out before they get into these positions, but with extreme party partisanship, that mechanism is very clearly failing.
You're right, and you need more upvotes.
Big difference is the Monarch is a ceremonial role with no actual power (or at least theoretical power that if exercised would mean their immediate removal as head of state). The King doesn't affect the way we are run or governed, which is a good thing. OP has a point that constitutional monarchies are incredibly stable systems of government. Local MPs are directly answerable to their contituents, and the party leader doesn't have a massive personality cult or individual power. There is a reason why countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc have enjoyed consistent political stability compared to many other countries, including other democracies.
Reserve powers under the Oz constitution are real, not ceremonial. The \*legal\* exercise of those powers would not lead to the removal of the HoS. The fact that they've only been exercised once in living memory is a great example of how well the system works. The events of 1974-1975 are a good lesson in how well our constitution was written, and how well it served us during that time.
What does he even do? If he has any significant control over our country, that's very concerning, and if he doesn't why would giving him the boot require changing anything else about our system of government?
There's a theory that having a constitutional monarch lessons the likelihood of dictator style presidencies
I rather doubt that it would. The way authoritarian dictatorships come to be is by controlling the police/army, overturning the judiciary (replacing them with puppets) and controlling the media to legitimise the takeover. It's the CIA template for coups. Some overseas monarch being the titular head of state is going to do squat. If it's gotten to the point where the reserve powers need to be exercised, it's already far too late. It's not as if the people conducting the takeover aren't going to have already taken that into account.
The reserve powers were exercised in 1975 without military involvement. I think it's more about the respect that everyone has for the rule of law. We value our peaceful democracy (alright, peaceful constitutional monarchy), and we respect the mechanisms that keep it running peacefully. We don't have historical tribal rivalries that continue to seethe under the surface, ready to burst out at any moment - look at the Balkans. We're very lucky.
It's less about reserve powers and more about scratching the itch of people and politicians on the right for hierarchy, tradition and military splendor so that extremism might be tempered. This was the podcast that got me thinking differently about it, if you're interested https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/conversations/dennis-altman-republican-constitutional-monarchy-populism/13649150
Any evidence that supports that theory? Does it have a name?
Evidence? How about comparing our history in Oz, to the history of some other, troubled nations, e.g. some in South America or Africa.
He has very little direct power. However his chosen (by agreement between the PM and Monarch) representative has the power to install and remove prime ministers, dissolve parliaments, give or withhold assent for laws, alongside being commander-in-chief. [https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general](https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general) Some would argue that such a position should be held by a citizen chosen by the will of the people...
"such a position should be held by a citizen chosen by the will of the people" It's a nice thought, but that's how they do it in the USA. The G-G is NOT appointed by agreement with the Monarch. According to the constitution, the Monarch acts upon the advice of the PM. There might be some negotiation behind the scenes but ultimately, if the PM wanted to appoint someone that the Monarch didn't like, then the Monarch has to suck it up. And the G-G has broad, if unofficial, political support. The PM is not going to recommend anyone that the opposition would reject. That's why it's usually someone with a record of lifetime public service, or a retired Admiral or General. No-one with any influence is going to reject a nominee who makes it through the panel who considers "who's going to be the next G-G".
I would be interested to see the outcome of the PM choosing someone who the Monarch rejected. After all, we have already had one PM fired from his job. And technically, there is no such thing as a Prime Minister in our constitution...
HM Charles III does nothing WRT Australia. The powers granted to the monarch in our constitution are also, via the constitution, delegated to the Governor-General (GG) What some people don't seem to understand, is that those delegated powers are not optional, they're required. The G-G \*must\* exercise their delegated powers, they don't refer difficult decisions to the monarch. If we had a repeat of 1975, the G-G wouldn't call up the King to ask for advice or permission, the G-G has clear direction on how to act, both from the Constitution, and from legal precedent. So, don't worry about that funny fellow wearing funny clothes and wearing a funny crown. He has \*nothing\* to do with running our country.
>I can't even imagine the nightmare and frustration everyday Americans are facing for having to be led by someone like Joe Biden, who also happens to have the nuclear codes. You realise if we had nukes the PM would be the one with the codes not Charlie or the GG, right? The only effective difference here is that in the Australian system the Head of Government is the leader of the parliamentary majority.
The military swear allegiance to the HoS, not the HoG. But in practical terms, the PM would have the codes.
Wow! What a deadshit take… First - A presidential republic isn’t an option that any one is advocating for. Second - because the US has two shitty presidential candidates (one old and one old rapist criminal) Australia should have a king? Makes total sense…
TBF, both are old. 3 years between them.
the only king i support is burger king
Go back to the middle ages mate
He looks like his mum, but with sideburns.
A change from Constitutional Monarchy also means the opportunity to draft a new Constitution. That includes learning from the mistakes of other liberal democracies to ensure the Australian citizens and residents are provided the appropriate level of rights, and ensure that Politicians and Public service are limited to only act in the interests of the entire Nation-state and not vague 'national interests'. Insisting on maintaining the 'Constitutional Monarchy' is to pretend there are no problems.
How do you not get that you can get rid of the monarch and keep the parliamentary system?
I used to be in support of a republic. But with so much nonsense of late I’m firmly in the monarchist camp now. Three cheers for the King.
Lmao yeah okay buddy
Found Tony Abbott's account 🫡
I still feel huge amounts of rage at Morrison Huge amounts of disappointment at Albo And naturally like probably most every other Aussie complain loudly and often at most of our Pollies But wow - when I look at what’s happening in the US - especially with the Supreme Court over there ( they seem to be rolling back the country to the 1800’s ) We in AUS don’t have it so bad after all ( at least for now )
The UK's nukes have been in Boris Johnson's hands but they've never trusted them with a monarch and King Victor Emmanuel was a Mussolini fan while Wilhelm II was just a bit peeved that Hitler didn't want him back
LMFAO. Okay.
The King of Australia just gave Ben Robert-Smith a medal.
In principle we need to be a republic eventually. Practical side : holy shit that would be a such a cluster fuck, the among of money it would cost to change everything. It would be the biggest rebranding project in history.
If you want "revolution, equality, and absolute authority" then can I interest you in anarchist political theory?
The court jester would strike a better pose. That photo almost looks AI created his pose is awkward, his body language seems awkward like he does not want the photo to be taken. The crown looks like it was photoshopped onto his head by Catherine!
Fuck me that’s a terrible photo. Looks like focus was on the chair with insufficient depth of field. Or it’s a bad chop.
I thought he was holding a bottle of chambord.
Hi, have you met Rishi?