[jleyank]

Almost 50 years ago. Caused a constitutional crisis. Would not think it’s repeatable elsewhere in the commonwealth. Reasonable chance her successor will be head of state of fewer realms. Constitutional monarchs use their power at risk to their institution. Sometimes it’s quite useful (Spain), but it would quickly fade if used repeatedly.

Analogous to any non-executive head of state I would think. However, the time of a non-resident monarch has passed - they should be of and reside in the country they're head of state of.

[midislack]

It's not just possible, it can be done without notice on a whim.

[gus_massa]

Australia has enough tanks. In case the Queen want to dissolve the government they can just tweet "Nah" and continue as usual. What is the United Kingdom going to do? Invade? Ask Canada and New Zeeland to make a joint force?

(Officially breaking will cause some problems, so it depends a lot on the internal situation and how much popular support the government has.)

[midislack]

That’s just incorrect, Australia isn’t a proper legal country and those tanks belong to the Crown, ultimately.

[gus_massa]

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If Australians ignore the request of the Queen and also steal the tanks, what is the Crown going to do? Invade?

[jleyank]

Careful. Us Canucks can be a right violent people with a stick in our hands. Especially in the corner…

[jleyank]

Rereading the wiki article, it seems Australia resembles England before the House of Lords was broken in the 1905-1909 time period - the upper house can influence money bills. It would seem that this was a case of the Governor General involving powers of the crown that it has but should not use. The gg was Australian.

Perhaps this is (another) example of the difficulties of running a government composed of more than one centre of power.