Confessions of a young monarchist

RT says:

07:03am | 07/09/09

There’s nothing wrong with the monarchy, it’s just that the only association Australia should have with it is an historical one. Australia as a modern country should move on from having a foreigner as head of state, holding that office by right of birth.

The gossip mags would still report on the Brit royals if we were a republic, Sarah, so you wouldn’t be deprived of that. It’s just that it would be even more irrelevant than it is now.

Let’s go with a low impact change to the constitution: replace the word ‘Governor-General’ with ‘President’. Instead of appointment of the G-G by the PM without any consultation as happens now, the President would be chosen by a joint sitting of both houses of Parliament and could be impeached in the same way. No elected president, that would set up political and constitutional problems.

There would be almost no cost. Cost is not a reason to oppose a republic.

Liz says:

10:02am | 07/09/09

Aren’t they rather expensive as an option to laugh at? Life for most holds much more meaning.They’re people like the rest of us and very expensive people to support in these hard times.Their relevance to our country is nil and a Republic is long overdue, we don’t need to act like kids hanging on to someone’s petticoat.

Eric says:

10:14am | 07/09/09

I think it’s worth keeping the monarchy simply because it annoys the right people.

Thomas Flynn says:

10:16am | 07/09/09

Thanks for that open and heartfelt expression Sarah. It is undoubtedly true that the Australian constitutional monarchy has served us well in guaranteeing continuous peaceful government for 108 years - something that the US (the stellar example of a republic) did not achieve until 1973. And yet there is something more as I think you suggest - the magic of monarchy we might call it. It does not make sense to tidy minded clever people. They would rather have some carefully planned constitution that works beautifully…in theory, in practice however I would not be so sure. There is indeed something moving about a system that traces its roots back 1000 years or more.

@RT: (1) The term Head of State is does not occur in the Australian constitution. In 1907 The High Court of Australia called the Governor General the constitutional head of the commonwealth. In 2009 the Prime Minister called the Governor General the Head of State. Give up. (2) You suggest a tippex republic, whiting out “governor general” in the constitution and writing in “president”. It’s a little more complicated than that - for example where would the reserve powers go? The all-republican Republic Advisor Commission led by Malcolm Turnbull in the early 90s rejected it as a way to bring about some kind of republic. (3) Constitutions are not tins of baked beans, they are not computers, they are not cars. The date of their provenance does not determine their quality. Just because a constitutional system is old does not mean it is bad. You might as well refuse to breathe because respiration goes back to Adam. (4) Republicanism so far has cost $130 million. And republicans still cannot agree on a system that would serve us well for 108 minutes, much less 108 years.

mick hogan says:

10:25am | 07/09/09

The only reason the monarchy should exist is to provide a reminder of what can happen when relatives marry. The only thing they have given to this country is prisoners and parasites. In 200 years, nothing has changed. The rum corps are still in charge of crime and could teach the non uniformed criminals some tricks and the parasites have united to run the 4 banks which run this country. The monarchy have taken a lot more than they have given and we should remember that. You can replace money but a generation of our best and fittest in ww1, and the subsequent abuse of our well intentioned men and women in battles they started, must be seen even by the monarchists as fratricideand matricide. The only people I meet who support the monarchy come from other countries that have never “suffered” the wonderful experience of by being colonised, or fawning sychophants who still keep the best crockery in a special place in the cupboard, “just in case the queen pops in for a cuppa”.

Grant Roberts says:

10:51am | 07/09/09

It seems strange, yet poignant to read the above comments. Those clearly of a republican leaning seem to know little of the constitutional implications turning Australia into a republic. Not only are some of the above comments unfair, they are wrong as well. “Liz’s” comments regarding the cost of the Monarchy would be valid-if in fact the monarchy cost the Autralian taxpayer money-in actual fact, Australians do not contribute a single cent to the running of our oldest institution, we leave that to the Brits.

And to suggest that the Monarchy is accountable for the tragic losses of lives in WWI seems both immature and stupid. Even the most partial historian can recognise the reasons for such high casualties during that conflict.

I may be only a high-school student, but I like my monarchy, I like my country, and I find it scary to think that people who do not know what they are talking about are the strongest advocates for Constitutional change.

iansand says:

10:52am | 07/09/09

A few years ago I watched a fascinating documentary on the Queen’s year.  It showed how deeply she was enmeshed in the constituitional and ceremonial affairs of Britain.  Everything from swan upping to garter ceremonies to involvement with the guilds and the armed forces and weekly chats with the Prime Minister.  Lots of blokes in fancy dress.

There was nothing about Australia.  There is no reason to keep her, or her descendants.  On the other hand, her complete lack of involvement means there is no compelling reason to get rid of her.  In time, and I think it will be a relatively short time, everyone will wake up and decide we don’t need a monarch any more.  That is the time to get rid of the monarch, not at a time when it will be contentious.

Jake the Muss says:

10:54am | 07/09/09

Actually Liz, the British Royal Family makes a profit for the British taxpayer, they don’t cost the British anything.  I hardly see how they would cost us anything in that regard.

There are far more intellectual arguments for and against retaining our constitutional monarchy than this fluffy little article.  As such, I’ll recognise this one for what it is and let it go through to the keeper.

http://www.pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com

Mick Hogan says:

11:03am | 07/09/09

Grant; good luck with your knighthood. With your vast knowledge of the constitutional monarchy, we will all be fawning sychophants in no time. Or are we supposed to be now? I wonder why we are so ungrateful? poignant?

Grant Roberts says:

11:24am | 07/09/09

Thankyou Mick for your best wishes, but despite having some knowledge of our Constitutional arrangements, I am not so arrogant or self indulging to think myself worthy of such an accolade.

In regards to your question, I don’t know why Australians are so ungrateful. I think it might have something to do with little education on the matter. And yes, the above comments were poignant as they so clearly demonstrated the confident, but undeducated plethora of thoughts being oozed from the Australian Republican Movement.

Steven says:

11:34am | 07/09/09

Solid piece Sarah, but you’d be surprised about how many young people are tending towards keeping the monarchy.
In a class last semester at Uni, where the average age would’ve been around 18-19, and poll was taken between keeping it as it is or changing to some sort of a republic. I would say 80-85% of the class voted to keep it as it is, which our esteemed lecturer though would have been preposterous five years ago.
The fact remains, that the best form of republic for the Constitution (2/3 majority of parliament elect a head of state) is unpopular with the swill, therefore no consensus can be reached. A popular vote for a President has too many ramifications. In light of this more young people want to just keep it the way it is.

RT says:

11:41am | 07/09/09

Thomas Flynn - would I be right in suspecting that you are a Monarchist? I gather that from the way you try to complicate a simple way to bring about a republic. It’s too complicated therefore too hard, right? And the Queen is not our head of state so there’s no need, really, is there? So remind me again just what it is that the Monarchists are so determined to defend? Section 2 of the Australian Constitution describes the G-G as the Queen’s representative in Australia -  can I assume you have no objection to changing that?  ‘Republicanism has so far cost $130M’?  Wouldn’t most of that be the cost of the sham exercise that Howard invented to defend the Monarchist system? So Monarchism, not Republicanism, has incurred that cost.

Bruce says:

12:12pm | 07/09/09

Agree RT. I am all for moving towards a republic, providing we DO NOT have a publicly elected president. We have most probably, the best, and most stable form of government in the world. I am not against the monarchy as such, but they most probably have surved their time for us. For those who appear to take a hatred stand against our past, the flag and the monarchy, it also gave us AUSTRALIA, something must have been going right!!. I have travelled many places in the world and nothing and nowhere beats Australia. By the way “Liz” the revenue the poms make out of the Royal Family is huge.

Roy says:

12:14pm | 07/09/09

Thomas Flynn wrote:” It is undoubtedly true that the Australian constitutional monarchy has served us well in guaranteeing continuous peaceful government for 108 years.”
Rubbish, Tommy! It has been the good commonsense of the Australian people which has been responsible for continuous peaceful government. It has had nothing to do with the faraway,foreign monarchy. It has been in spite of the monarchy!

Just look at the havoc which the monarchy has created in the United Kingdom where in the past 40 years more than 3,000 of Her Majesty’s subjects have been slaughtered and more than 40,000 seriously injured in bitter sectarian strife at the very root of which is the anti-Catholic sectarianism which is such an essential part of the British monarchy. In the only instance in the civilised western world where religious bigotry is actually enshrined in law the laws of succession to the throne state that Catholics cannot become monarch nor may the monarch marry a Catholic because, as those laws state,  “it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist.” Can’t trust them, you know!

But there’s more! Not only are Catholics forbidden from becoming monarch but also Presbyterians, Methodists, Salvationists, Jews, Muslims,Baptists etc..  The reason why is that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England. These sectarian laws might have been right and proper for England in 1688 (when they were framed) but they are an obscenity in the first decade of the 21st century. Only bigots and fundamentalists could support an institution which is based on such bitter religious hatred. That is just one of the reasons why it is so out-of-time in modern Australia.

Well may we ask why we tolerate a Head of State who is there because she was born in the right bed and because her Uncle David ran away with an American divorcee leaving his stuttering, ill equipped brother to ascend the throne.

And then there is the German / Nazi connection. The British royal family’s real name is not Windsor. It is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. That is what the Queen’s father name was when he was born. Prince Philips’s real name is
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. And the Nazi connection?
Two of Philip’s sisters were married to German military officers one of whom, British war historian Lord Lambton claimed, was the pilot of a plane which bombed Buckingham Palace. Talk about keeping it in the family!!
The other was a Panzer Division commander on the Western Front whose troops would have been responsible for killing many Allied troops including Diggers. When Princess Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha married Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg just after WWII the bride requested that her German in-laws attend the wedding. The British government very wisely declined that request ! It should never have been made in the first place.

If you want to read about the more intimate details of “our glorious monarchy” go to British website http://www.throneout.com>Royal Affairs.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:16pm | 07/09/09

Young monarchists need to grow up. The world has moved on since the days of the British Empire and the Commonwealth. Britain is firmly within the European Union. The only reason Australia is not a republic is general lack of political willpower and the fact that Howard rigged the game.

Liz says:

12:30pm | 07/09/09

Oh dear, there are some readers here who have some serious bias and uniformed problems about “THE PAST”. “I will never forgive the Roman empire for invading so many counrties !!!!!

AdamC says:

12:55pm | 07/09/09

Trite monarchy-bashing (remote, not Australian, etc) does not equate to a serious argument about Australia’s constitutional arrangements. People see through silly attempts to sneeze away the 108 years of continuous democracy that our constitutional monarchist institutions have delivered. In that time, many supposedly successful republics (such as France) have been through three or four constitutional iterations.

Constitutional monarchy is the most stable and effective form of government we have. Many people are starting to realise that scrapping a system which we can genuinely hold out to be among the world’s best, simply for the sake of asserting our separation from Blighty, is not a sign of national maturity but quite the opposite.

pc says:

01:27pm | 07/09/09

There seem to be two parallel debates here. 1. A straightforward political debate: Constitutional monarchy vs Republic and the corresponding advantages vs costs, that I recall formed the substance of the failed referendum. Despite the failure of the referendum, for which, republicans can thank Malcolm Turnbull and Sophie Mirabella, then Sophie Panapoulos (Im sorry if I didnt spell that correctly), it seems likely this was because of fear of change rather than identification or loyalty with the monarchy. Though they were then on different sides -she did such a good job and he so bad, that it is now hard to imagine Australia becoming a republic before Britain, which is a disinct possibility after the death of the current queen.

The second debate is usually framed by journalists as “What Kind of country are we?” Just as often “we” answer this question with who we think we are not. Thus the white australia policy was not just about being white but not being asian - or indigenous for that matter. The language of multiculturalism that developed under Keating recognised that in a multi ethnic society such a firm idea of “us” excluded a lot of citizens. However, just as Sarah, “I doubt youd find a more patriotic wog than myself” there is considerable support for the monarchy amongst people Keating considered excluded. The excluded who have been completely missing from these debates though, are indigenous australians. They stll call australia home and for what. I know there is an idea the empire brought civilisation with it but there arent many who lived under the empire that would agree. I’m reminded of monty pythons the Life of Brian, when the Peoples Front of Judea’s (PFJ) leader Reg asks. What have the Romans ever done for us? The Schools, the roads. Oh and the streets are safe to walk at night. “Ok. Ok. Apart from the schools the roads and public safety. What have the Romans ever done for us?” You know the rest. The problem with this history is it doesnt consider the many genocides perpetrated by the Romans.(Those peoples have been erased from history)  Nor the destruction the empire wrought on indigenous peoples everywhere and still does. Ask an Indian what the Empire did for them. It made the production of local cotton goods impossible in order to support english manufacturing. During the potato famines in Ireland, Britain raised the price of the other staple corn, creating worse starvation. Who we are, is defined as much by who we were, the thing about nationalism and the reason it was such a powerful and world changing force is it includes the question about the future. Who are we going to be? So, Who are we going to be?

mick hogan says:

01:29pm | 07/09/09

In this country a young monarchist should be an oxymoron. Grant, when you have read a little more and grown a little more you may understand what maturity and experience is. You may also be less arrogant and self indulgent on this topic. You may develop some knowledge, but your blind bias wont allow you to accept reality.

Margaret Gray says:

02:25pm | 07/09/09

How hilarous to see the pro-Republicans flailing and berating those not in lockstep with their enlightened and ‘progressive’ viewpoint (TOTH ‘Mick’).

What the pro-Republicans do in comments here and what they failed to do at the referendum was provide a plausible argument for change.

There is still no compelling argument, save the doe-eyed Whitlamites who still swear they wuz robbed (LOL).

Avoiding the cloyingly nauseating ‘we are a mature nation’ pablum, the fact the ultimate model was flawed seems to have escaped all but the most strident tin-foil hat wearers (cue “Howard rigged it” conspiracists).

This debate has flatlined…no-one cares either way except the extremists at either end.

Personally, I look forward to being a Republic if it means we no longer waste hundreds of MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars pursuing Commonwealth Games ‘glory’.

Grant Roberts says:

02:26pm | 07/09/09

MIck, it is with disappointement that I read your last comment. While I presented an ideological argument, you have chosen the lesser route, that is to outright insult me. Now, if I wasn’t so “arrogant and self indulgent,” I would think that you were perhaps unable to rebut the content of my previous comments.

Having said that, it is with pride that I support our Constitutional system, and let’s hope that pride amongst Australian youth in our oldest institutions never becomes oxymoronic.

Jamie says:

02:48pm | 07/09/09

I’m a young monarchist as well, but one who realises that it is inevitable that Australia will one day become a republic. However, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why we should become a republic except for some bland overarching motherhood statements about being an independent country, which we are anyway, and having an Australian head of state, which really, we do as well.

Bruce says:

02:56pm | 07/09/09

Poor “mick” it appears you hate Australia and Australian history. Could you tell me a better place to live for all of us “prisoners” and “parasites”?  What is reality????

James McIlwain says:

02:58pm | 07/09/09

I have a great solution. Separate the Australian Monarchy from the automatic same one as the UK (as the Queen is actually Queen of Australia) by offering the crown to Prince Harry. Everyone loves a bloodnut and as he won’t be getting the big gig - he’s bang on. Besides - he’s a bit of a lad and isn’t quite as “establisment” as the Brits wouuld like. Long Live King Harry the First. He can be “our” King - while retaining historic ties to the UK. He would have to ditch the three lions shirts as part of the coronation oath though. And tell him to bring Chelsea with him.

Michael says:

03:05pm | 07/09/09

Queen Elizabeth II is not my queen, I will not fight for her and I will not die for her, I am Australian and I want an Australian head of state, arguments about cost and history be damned, I was born in 1983 in Gosford, Australia and I am not a subject of the British throne.

Bruce in Melbourne says:

03:08pm | 07/09/09

Wonderful piece, thank you for sharing your ideas. I am a wholehearted supporter of the Australian Monarchy and as long as we have a good laugh we will defeat the misanthropic republicans.

Samson T says:

03:17pm | 07/09/09

Although I have no interest in weighing into the debate over having a constitutional monarchy, I want to say that I find the idolisation of a woman such as Queen Victoria a little disturbing.  The oppression of British subjects across the world during her reign was nothing short of disgusting.

Although it may be true that it was mostly the policies of the British government at the time that exacerbated the Irish potatoe famine into such a catastrophic event, the actions of Queen Victoria during that period were nothing short of appalling.  Refusing a personal offer of 10,000 pounds of aid from the Ottoman sultan because it would have made her own 2,000 pound contribution seem a little small is petty beyond belief.  And there can be no doubt that the royal family pursued a policy of refusing to acknowledge the crisis until it had grown into something that took the lives of 1 million Irish men and women.  Actually 1 million people starved to death!

Maybe i’m too focused on the past, or missing the point of the article, but in my eyes (for what it’s worth) the world’s monarchies continue to represent one of the worst constructions society ever came up with: the belief that some humans are better than others because of who their parents were.  Though I appreciate the importance of culture and institution as much as anyone, there can be no denying that a long, long line of monarchies have treated certain groups of their subjects as something less than human.  Do we really need the remants of that system in the 21st century?

What do you think Sarah?

Michael says:

03:27pm | 07/09/09

heh I don’t hate mankind Bruce, just blue bloods and anyone else who is born better then the rest of us, I wonder how many Monarchists support the Queen of England because she is the head of the Church of England?

But you would be right to assume I have a distrust and dislike of the general consensus, thanks for the new word I enjoyed reading the wiki entry on that one.

pete says:

04:13pm | 07/09/09

why is it called a constitutional monarchy, when the poms dont have a constitution?

James McIlwain says:

04:40pm | 07/09/09

Shouldn’t she actually be Queen Elizabeth the First (of Australia)
- as part of Royal Style and Titles Act (ammended 1973). I don’t seem to recall any other Queen Elizabeth’s that have any relationship with Australia.

Besides, there hasn’t been a real monarch of the UK since James II.

Lord Grognard says:

05:26pm | 07/09/09

So long as our President/Chancellor/Whatever is as useless as the current Monarch I have no problem moving to a republic.  At the very least the transitional process itself will cause a great deal of entertaining drama.

bel says:

05:58pm | 07/09/09

@ James McIlwain: Her mum was called elizabeth too

Brendan says:

06:13pm | 07/09/09

Its not a debate I think about much.  I really don’t think its all that important.  We didn’t send soliders to the Falklands, so we’re not really that tied to the British. 

But, and I think this is an interesting question, would anyone support a new king or queen who was an Australian?  Seriously, if we appointed, say Dick Smith?  Could we seriously take a vote and say “Smithy, we’ve voted.  You and your kids will be the figurehead rulers of this land now and forever.  You’ll have no actual power, but will be a unifying force for all Australians”

Would we do that?  If not, why is the Queen a more legitimate figurehead?

NNick says:

06:25pm | 07/09/09

We would still be in the Commonwealth Games if we became a republic, Margaret Gray.

JLT says:

06:30pm | 07/09/09

Good grief, if you represent the brightest and the best of the gen Y’ers, God help us. What lovely fatuous reasons you’ve presented to keep the monarchy. Or is it a female thing to want a QUEEN? Whilst a monarchy Britain sent millions of Africans into slavery and “Britain shipped an average of 12 tonnes of opium into China for everyday of Queen Victoria’s reign of precisely 63 years, 216 days.”

Republican says:

06:40pm | 07/09/09

What’s the big deal? why can’t we just get on with a minimalist change that means king/queen becomes president; flag gets changed; president appointed by 2/3 majority of all federal parliament ( = more democratic than current GG appointment system and avoids ridiculous popularist choices if we had a popular vote, like retired cricketers etc.);  I thought we were just waiting for the older generation to die out but this article gives me new fears that we have a way to go.

pc says:

07:02pm | 07/09/09

Michael, I agree Liz is not my queen, and Samson T, thanks for the expansion on Victoria’s role in Ireland. However, and Marg I want you to know how much I am going to enjoy this. I agree with you. (Dont worry Im not enjoying it that much) The republican campaign - of which I was a part - offered no ‘plausible’ argument’ and it is dead, for the forseeable future anyway. I do want to try to give you an answer though, so I am going to swap ‘plausible’ for meaningful, I suspect you wont consider what I’m going to say terribly plausible.

The referendum failed because it did not offer a better deal to australians - even the republicans. It was not about building new communities, it was the opportunity for the rich and powerful to preen on t.v. Both Malcolm and Sophie were just as interested in building a platform for their future political careers as debating the republic. The difference was that Sophie actually BELIEVED, Malcolm as usual, only believes in Malcom. Now I consider the debate a diversion from building new communities. (if you doubt the need read the strand on posers and their favourite suburbs). Without building new communities, nation building is merely state building. So what I would like to see, but am realistic enough to know is unlikely, is community building to nation building to regional building and then one day world building. A community which all human beings could feel they belong and participate, not just the WASPS and their admirers.

Formersnag says:

07:11pm | 07/09/09

Eric @ 09:14, i could not agree more. I reckon we should not have an Australian, as GG, but a real royal, out here, instead, like “bonny prince charlie”, harry or wills. Together with some of the pomp and circumstance for the tourists.

BTW, have you tried blogging on OLO, or onlineopinion.com.au? Reckon you might enjoy it. pimpinforfreedom, looks like fun too.

Cuppa says:

07:49pm | 07/09/09

I find it discusting that anyone would consider changing our flag.People fought & died for it, & this great country was built under it.Maybe people should appreciate the freedon & lifestyle Australia has because of the our monarchist system, instead of crying republic, republic, republic to anyone that will listen.

shifty_mcgee says:

08:15pm | 07/09/09

Huzzah, someone who agreees with my idea of leaving the shared Monarchy and getting Prince Harry to lead us into a glorious new booze-filled age!

André says:

08:55pm | 07/09/09

Thank God, another young monarchist! I felt so alone… and anyway, I’m yet to hear a decent argument for republicanism, its worked for the past 108 years, why change? JLT, how many tonnes of opium and how many millions of slaves have been shipped during the reign of Elizabeth the Second? That argument has absolutely no weight, especially seeing as France and the United States, two ‘stable’ republics, had slavery for a good 40 years or so longer than Britain did.

Peter says:

09:22pm | 07/09/09

Why not go the whole hog and have an elected President with a full separation between the Executive and the Legislature?

I mean, wouldn’t you like to have a local MP that actually represents YOUR interests, and is not bound to support the Executive at all costs.  It would also mean that the ‘best and brightest’ would be able to be made Ministers, not just factional hacks and slightly more talented than average backbenchers.

Imagine that!  Representatives who actually represented and a Head of State who we get to choose directly - and an executive that knew what it was doing.

So I say, roll on the republic, with with a maximalist model, and watch out political institutions prosper.

regina says:

10:14pm | 07/09/09

sarah i’m not entirely sure what it is you think the queen stands for except heritage and the heritage will remain if we become a republic but it will just be a distant memory rather than a crude embarrassing reality.

are you really infatuated with the australian flag? i don’t see it myself but then personally i think this new rising nationalism is a little worrying.

also i couldn’t care less about kate middleton or the queen and i don’t know a single person in my radar who does and i know a lot of people!

actually if my doctors waiting room readiang is anything to go by (because i would sooner stick pins in my eyes than pay to read woman’s day and its ilk)i don’t think the gossip mags are anywhere nearly as absorbed with the royals as they once were. it’s more brad v jennifer v angelina these days.

i think i’ve told this story on this blog already (sorry dave repeating myself so soon - i’m with the PIXIES) but my late grandmother would often ask me why we’ chose‘ such a plain-looking old woman as our monarch.

i’d explain that australians had no choice to which she would shake her head and smile say what a shame that was because she thought paul keating was rather handsome and kingly and his head would much look nicer on our coins.

i’m inclined to think he might agree.

dasilva says:

10:51pm | 07/09/09

Australia has been a successful democratic system. However that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we had a queen as head of state or the fact that the queen appointed our governor general. Tell me one occasion where the queen being a head of state actually helped as out in any way at all.

It’s more about the bicameral parliament, separation of powers, great voting system etc that is responsible for our democracy. Not the monarchy.

I have absolutely no respect for what the monarchy stands for. It’s represents the ideology that people deserve power due to family heritage and blood ties.  I find that morally abhorrent. It’s concept is antithesis to democracy. It’s the type of tradition that we should not celebrate even in a ceremonious way. I don’t see any romance in the concept of royalty. 

Reserve powers? The only person who should have power to sack the government should be the people not some unelected official. I’ll be quite happy just to remove the governor general system all together.

Jim says:

04:53am | 08/09/09

Funny thing is that pretty much no one in the UK could care less if Australia became a republic. Just wish you would either get on with it or shut up. If you dont like the royal family. thats your decision. It works well for us in the UK but if it has stopped working in Australia then change it. It is down to you, no one else. You had your chance to change things a few years ago and voted not to make the change - it was your decisionm nothing to do with the Queen, Phil the greek or any of the other misfits that make up our royal family.
dont let the pollies bog you down with the form of government after you become a republic, in the end it doesnt really matter. You just have to make the change, sweat the detail later. THis is what the pollies do, look at the Iraq war
Get on the soap box , demand another vote, get out and make sure people vote for a republic. Dont just sit around complaining about the monarchy, do something about it. Politicians are so gutless that if enough of you demand a vote then you will get it. Look at out lot, so pathetic they cannot even lie to us properly.
So your choice, get on with the republic, if all you do is complain on websites then it is your fault and there is no one else to blame

Mick F says:

10:37am | 10/09/09

Republicanism in Australia seems to be a baby boomer phenomenon and soon it will be more passe than the constitutional system they so disparage. More passe even than going to see aging rock stars perform with symphony orchestras at vineyards and pretending that you’re still progressive.

David says:

09:19am | 11/09/09

I support the Crown and as such feel I should clear up a few things.  Whilst it is clear that the Constitution does not mention the term “Head of State” it is quite clear that the Queen holds that position (though be it in a symbolic way) - the Governor-General is an officiating Head of State - that IS what was expressed in 1907.  Australia is a Kingdom The Queen is the Head of that Kingdom.  To read more on this issue visit “The Australian Monarchist League” website and read the very fine article by Mr Philip Benwell called “A DEFINITIVE EXPOSITION OF THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN AUSTRALIA”.

Very sad indeed to see that “Australians for Constitution” are trying to con the Australian people that the Governor-General is “Head of State” in his/he own right, if the Governor-General was “Head of State” in his/he own right than why have the Queen?  Indeed republicans would than say “why should our Head of State be appointed by someone else’s Head of State?”

Republicans also have problems they keep using the phrase “Queen of England” - there has NOT been a King or Queen of “England” since 1707.  Australia inherits the Crown of the United Kingdom.

TonyO says:

11:05am | 11/09/09

The politically correct types who rant about how “Howard rigged it” are why I’ve changed from a Yes last time to a definite NO anytime in the future. The left just keep inventing stuff all the time, on everything! How could I ever trust such a dishonest mob with something as crucial as our national game plan.
The left are incapable of a really objective look at the facts. Johnny boy played it straight down the line knowing that, as Hawke said “the Republicans lost the intellectual argument’ and so the battlers would work it out okay in the ballot box.
The ‘road test in 75’ proved what we’ve got works beautifully when the heat is really on.
Those who want a ‘mate for head of state’ also rule themselves out as too ignorant to be let anywhere near something as important as our Constitution. We’ve had ‘true blues’ as head of state for years. And now it’s even a sheila altho watch her, the raging fem ms like her are a ‘tricky’ as the rest of the left.

james scully says:

08:10pm | 11/09/09

The reason I want Australia to be a Republic is because it is the grown up thing to do. I do NOT want as my head of state a person who belongs to one of the most dysfunctional inbred families on the planet. They also discriminate on religious grounds. I wonder if our GG is a Jew or a Catholic how can he/she represent the monarch who cannot be a Jew or a Catholic.

TonyO says:

05:25am | 13/09/09

James Scully seems a bit mixed up. The King or Queen is our Sovereign or Monarch. The Governor General is our Head of State. We’ve had both a Catholic and a Jew in the GG roll. It didn’t seem to have the slightest impact on their effectiveness. Throwing out a constitution which has made Oz one of the more advanced democracies doesn’t seem particularly grown up.

Dave says:

07:44pm | 13/09/09

TonyO, it is you who seem to be mixed up.  The Queen is the titular Head of State in Australia.  However as the Queen does not reside in Australia she appoints a Governor-General as an effective Head of State (that is why we have a Governor-General).  However the Governor General is NOT Head of State in his/her own right.

A Sovereign or Monarch is the Head of the nation of which they are Monarch.  I support the Constitutional Monarchy but “Australians for Constitutional Monarchy” are not supporting the Crown in the correct way.

Nicholas Folkes says:

12:00am | 14/09/09

TonyO, you are right to state that “James Scully seems a bit mixed up:.....this typifies most Republicans and their total lack of knowledge about the Crown, role of GG and the Constitution. Half of the adult population do not even know that we have a Constitution and over 80% of the population don’t understand it. The UN puts out a HDI(Human Development Index) and 7 out of the top 10 spots are Constitutional Monarchies. There are numerous Republics around the world and most do not offer a stable system of Government, i.e. Zimbabwe, South Africa and Indonesia. Australia is the 6th oldest continuous democracy in the world, we have a democracy older than all Asian and African democracies - something to be very proud of. Many like to say that we are a multiracial nation so we should embrace something new but most of these new migrants have come from failing Republics so why would we want to follow their poor examples? Also James, our first Australian born GG was Isaac Isaacs, a Jew and more recently Zelman Cowen also a Jew was GG. There have also been countless Catholics as GG on a Federal and State level. Our current NSW Governor is Marie Bashir, an Australian of Lebanese Catholic descent. These distinguished Australians of Jewish and Catholic religious backgrounds have served their Offiice and people of Australia with prestige, pride and professionalism.