On Tuesday 19th of January, Prince William – the 2nd in line to various thrones – will visit Australia for just the second time. It has been reported that he is doing this to “get to know Australia”.

English Rugby fan Prince William tosses it around with some Kiwi kiddies

Since this tour was announced in December, as Media Director for the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), I have been busy with requests from English broadcasters and newspapers.

The interest should have been surprising, since William is only stopping in on Australia for three days for a “semi-official” tour on his way to New Zealand. Moreover, he is visiting only two cities: Sydney and Melbourne. However, given that there has been a massive PR campaign by the Palace to present William as the youthful – cuter – face of the monarchy, it was inevitable that the English press would be awash with expectation about whether Australia would warm to the Prince like good little subjects.

Obviously, any villainous Australian republicans who might throw eggs or wave banners while he was here would greatly add to the spectacle.

So, English broadcasters have been hounding us to provide republican spokespersons to join them as they follow William around Australia, presumably to get contrarian comment at every point in the tour. So far, we have declined every offer. Why?

The three main spokespersons for the ARM live in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Canberra. None of these cities – Australia’s 3rd and 6th most populous, along with the nation’s capital – will be visited by William on this trip. Frankly, dropping everything to fly to Sydney or Melbourne to link up with an English Lord’s entourage is not really our thing. Mind you, some broadcasters have made plans to come to us and we have been amendable to those approaches.

The English newspapers want comment, but then seem surprised to discover that we are fairly underwhelmed by the prospect of Will’s visit.

“59 per cent of Australians want Australia to be a republic,” I told one reporter. “I don’t think William coming to Australia will make even 1 per cent difference”.

The reporter replied, “I think you might be wrong there, William is very charming and I suspect he will win over a great many Australians”.

Will is a strapping young lad, quite handsome, well spoken and seems most amiable. But I don’t think it would matter if he turned out to be Father Christmas; really, how much PR can anyone do on a three days stopover that includes just two cities in a land that covers more than 5 million square miles and has 22 million people spread across it?

Another question I have been fielding is about whether the ARM will be protesting, or picketing, William’s tour.

Unfortunately for the spectacle, no picketing is on our agenda. The truth is, we have nothing against someone who, by sheer chance, ended up being born royal. As republicans, it is the institution we object to, not the personalities. We have no interest in embarrassing William and causing a ruckus on his Australian holiday.

As for protesting, although we won’t be waving banners, we will be conducting a small media campaign.

Australians love sport. So, we will be pointing out that Prince William – the 2nd in line to become the King of England and Australia – last year launched England’s bid to host the 2018 Football World Cup. Of course, England’s bid is in direct opposition to a well regarded bid submitted by Australia to host this most prestigious of sporting events. William is doing this because he is English and will, of course, always put England’s interests in front of Australia’s.

And we will make the observation that it is an affront to Australia’s National Day that someone who admits to knowing little about Australia, has spent only a couple of days here, and who actively lobbies against Australia’s interests would be asked by Victoria’s Governor make the speech at an official Australia Day function. According to the itinerary, he is doing just that in Melbourne at the request of the Victorian Governor on January 21 in Melbourne.

We will be saying that Australia deserves a head of state that loves Australia, puts Australia first in every arena and wouldn’t dream of lobbying against the nation’s interests. An Australian, who lives in Australia, not one that pops in for 3 days every 3 decades.

What more need be said?

Australian’s don’t think about the monarchy much, and although most Australians are republicans, they rarely get passionate about the issue because the monarchy is so completely irrelevant to their daily lives. The 1999 referendum was won by monarchists largely by them making the argument that the Royals are effectively totally divorced from the Australian system, so why bother going to the trouble to change it?

Therefore, William’s tour – a tour by a 27-year-old who us not even next in line for the throne – will be a bonus for the ARM. It will remind Australians that every time a Royal condescends to visit our shores they make themselves part of our system again. Then, we are expected to get excited, tug the forelock and genuflect towards whoever it is as if we are an inferior class of human beings.

Australians remember the hysterical reaction by the English press when one of our Prime Ministers had the temerity to briefly touch the Queen’s back when she was in Australia on an official tour. The ‘Lizard of Oz’ Paul Keating was called by the tabloid press, yet all he did was gently guide the Queen, as any younger person would to help an elderly person who had begun to walk in the wrong direction at an official event.

If William’s tour has any significance for republicans, it is simply that it will demonstrate once again that this system of inherited privilege should not have any place in egalitarian Australia. As Australians, we should not need to humble ourselves to anyone, no matter what family of foreign nobility they may have been born into. The class system is tired, outdated, and has no place in Australia.

William is out here to present the fresh face of the monarchy. The monarchy hopes that this will keep us tied to an archaic system for a while longer. We think Will’s visit will backfire because it will remind Australians why it is so important that we move on.

56 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      06:50am | 19/01/10

      Who cares? Only those who believe that a god has “appointed” some one to be he/shes/it representative for the common folk to look up to.
      So many people have quite rightly pointed out the odios Indian caste system, yet happily support our own caste system of “royalty”.
      Royalty represents unearned privelege . How can anyone support that?

    • David says:

      07:25am | 19/01/10

      I don’t really understand why the Queen would care if we are a republic or not, what benefit is it to them?

    • SLF says:

      08:48am | 19/01/10

      For people who don’t care about the monarchy, you all do seem to get rather worked into a lather about it all.

      Actively lobbies against Australia’s interests? Condecends to make a visit to our shores?

      Give the guy a break, whether you are a republican ot not, if his short visit makes people feel special, or better about themselves then what is the problem?

      Take the chips of your shoulders and fry them up for lunch, they will tasts a hell of a lot better than your bitterness.

    • D'oh says:

      08:58am | 19/01/10

      @T.Chong:

      “Who cares? Only those who believe that a god has “appointed” some one to be he/shes/it representative for the common folk to look up to.”

      The answer is those that do not share your “my left wing intelligence is superior and your bogan attitude is inferior” philosophy.

      “Who cares?”  More people than those that don’t care.

    • David Fraser says:

      09:09am | 19/01/10

      Not to mention the cost to the Australian taxpayer of his three day visit….bet hes not paying for the security and the cost of the functions…maybe he’s here to find a “Kanga”

    • Robbie says:

      06:57pm | 19/01/10

      David,firstly I am a monarchist for which there will be no forth coming apology.I couldn’t give a toss whether Australia became a republic or not.My only problem on that front would be which colour wiggle to vote for as our first president.Secondly,I’‘II pay you your part of William’s taxpayer funded visit ,if you’ll pay mine for our special geusts on Christmas Island.Deal?.Good onya mate.

    • AdamC says:

      03:00pm | 19/01/10

      Well, David, there is media-cycle stable and then there is history-cycle stable. I prefer the latter. If you take a time period from Australia’s federation (a useful starting point) to now, the ‘stability’ of your republics looks rather illusory.

      We will forget about Germany, because it is a ridiculous example of long-term stability – they have had several ‘reichs’ in the period, though everyone only remembers one of them. (In fact, Hitler’s ascension to absolute power was in part facilitated by Germany’s then poor republican system of government.)

      Then there is France, which has been through three republics (not including their Vichy collaboration regime, which we would all like to forget). La gloire des republiques, one might say. Not a particularly great example of stability, either.

      I have to pay Ireland, though her history as a republic is shorter than ours as a constitutional monarchy. And, of course, I have to pay the US, though I would stress that its republic model is quite ‘monarchistic’ with a very strong president. I would also note that the success of strong-man US democracy seems to be an example of US exceptionalism in action – the model hasn’t travelled well.

      So, of four republics, hand-picked for stability out of so many in existence today, only two have demonstrated genuine stability over time. This suggests unambiguously that constitutional monarchies are simply more effective.

    • Cuppa says:

      06:41pm | 20/01/10

      well said Dóh.T. Chong, are you seriously comparing Australias relationship with the monarchy to Indias caste system?Thats moronic.Getting pretty desperate for an argument there ace.

    • Russ says:

      09:06am | 19/01/10

      No, David Flint is right, we should all feel very special that Will cares so much about Australia that he’s rushing back here for another visit only 26 years after his first.  I know I do.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:11am | 19/01/10

      NO probs D’oh, grab your union jack, and tug your forelock to prince willie. Have a great time doing it too, just I dont think the majority care, you do,. Lets both respect each others POV, and break the mould, and show some right Punchers have some sense of humor.

    • D'oh says:

      10:23am | 19/01/10

      “Lets both respect each others POV, and break the mould, and show some right Punchers have some sense of humor.”

      LOL.  Always!!

    • Cameron says:

      09:19am | 19/01/10

      I have no problem with him coming here, as long as he pays for it himself and expects to be treated like any normal person. The taxpayers of Australia should certainly not have to pay for it, nor the bevy of A listers that are wheeled out on such occasions.  He has served his country in the armed forces and deserves abundant respect for that.  But royalty is an anachronistic institution which has no place in this country. Over time it will disappear of its own volition everywhere

    • Jake says:

      09:22am | 19/01/10

      I care and so did 72% of Australians in the last referendum.

      So Mr Donovan you think that by representing England in the campaign to host the FIFA World Cup he is activly lobbying against Australian interests.

      It is this kind of hypocritical journalism and jumping on an ill-informed and small bandwagon to push your own selfish agenda that makes me think that some people should require a licence to be journalists. If you are so against Royal families and monarchies then where to you stand on Mary of Denmark. If she lobbied for the FIFA World cup would you then accuse her of treachery and spitting in the face of her birth nation? I dare say you woudn’t.

    • Lorikeet says:

      09:51am | 19/01/10

      I’m very sure in my own mind that a HUGE proportion of that 72% were ex-poms who voted against our independence. 

      Campaigning for FIFA for UK is not lobbying against Australia, but it is also not in our interest no matter what you say.

      No one is against Royalty - it’s just not applicable here.  You need a chill pill mate

    • David Donovan says:

      10:19am | 19/01/10

      “72% of Australians in the last referendum”, ‘eh? There you go, Jake, your credibility is immediately gone, because the records show that just under 55% of Australian’s voted “no’ in 1999. Not 72%. Nowhere near.

      As for William lobbying against Australia, yes he is. If England are vying with Australia for hosting rights to this tournament and William supports England, but doesn’t mention, acknowledge or say anything positive about Australia—one of his future dominions—then he is obviously lobbying against our interests. But, I have no problem with that. He is English, of course he would. The point is that we need a head of state that promotes our interests, and this one clearly won’t.

      As for Mary of Denmark, she is Danish now and has renounced her Australian citizenship so I would expect her to lobby for Denmark. Wouldn’t you?

    • Roy McKeen says:

      09:23am | 19/01/10

      According to an exclusive poll conducted by Newspoll for the British media company ITN and the Seven Network 58% of those polled want Prince William and not his father, Prince Charles, to succeed Queen Elizabeth II.
      Shades here as to why Shane Warne never became captain of the Australian cricket team!

      That 58% figure is irrelevant because if the queen were to die today Prince Charles would automatically become king according to British law.
      Irrelevant it might be but nevertheless the fact that the people of Australia have been asked to decide who should be Australia’s next head of state is a signal in which way the wind is blowing and is also an indication that an Australian republic cannot be far away. As soon as you start asking the people to decide matters like that the writing is on the wall for the concept of hereditary monarchy not only here in Australia but also in the United Kingdom.

    • Badger says:

      11:01am | 20/01/10

      How many of the 42% Republican voters are New Australian’s, I bet a lot of them are not Anglo Saxons or Caucasian either, so they don’t get a vote unless they are born here

    • Adam Dennis says:

      10:14am | 19/01/10

      Oh, Jake. If you were around to vote in the referendum you’d know that the vote was not ultimately on a simple issue; the process was compromised and many people chose to vote No rather than move from one undesirable system (the devil we know) to another one.

      Why do you accuse Mr Donovan of pushing a selfish agenda? You think he’s personally going to benefit if Australia becomes a republic? More than 50% of Australians want a republic - they just want to get the model right. It will happen in time, that’s for certain. Please, for your own peace of mind, try to deal with it. The bitterness of your response will eat you up if you let it.

      And as for Princess Mary; she’s not our royalty, she’s not a citizen of Australia - hence she’s irrelevant to this discussion.

    • 6clegs says:

      10:33am | 19/01/10

      eh. wills bald spot will be all the pommy press will report on. the good old Oz/NZ media wasn’t quite as deferential, and now it’s out there for all his female teenage fans to see… balding men have a problem comming off as young and boy-next-door-ish, ya know, how the palace wants him portrayed…

      *yawn* - next!

    • Liz says:

      11:09am | 19/01/10

      Underwhelmed says it all.A Republic is what most of us want despite Johnny’s clever referendum.Monarchy =irrelevant to Australia today.

    • acker says:

      11:13am | 19/01/10

      One media outlet spoke of all the time Prince W spends working for charity’s….....if he and the monarchy were truly humble we would never hear about it…...hearing about it via the royal press secretary cheapens the charitable act and turns it into a publicity event. :(

    • watty says:

      11:29am | 19/01/10

      Who cares? 
      Obviously some hack working for the “Republicans” who writes more than 5009 words to show he DOESN’T care

    • Ulysses says:

      01:01pm | 19/01/10

      Who is Australia’s head of state anyway ?  Is it the Governor-General or Her Majesty ?  I bet you London to a brick that Monarchists don’t even know or agree on that either. Who is our ” Commander in Chief ” ?  It would be nice to know - the Americans seem to!  Either way only one of them holds an Australian passport and pays taxes in Australia. It will be interesting who our Monarch supports when we tussle for the Ashes later this year. Simple solution: make our next head of state an Australian. No need to go to NASA for that one !!!

    • AdamC says:

      01:05pm | 19/01/10

      Wait, the Australian Republican movement doesn’t even have a media representative in Sydney (or Melbourne)? What? Does the Courier Mail need two talking heads to call on republican issues or something?

      On the substantive issue, I am a royalist/monarchist for institutional and constitutional reasons, rather than personality reasons (i.e, liking the royals). Constitutional monarchies simply provide a better foundation for stable, liberal democracy than republics. And, despite being a (young, foolish) yes voter in last century’s referendum, I have always found the arguments of many republicans – we have to ‘assert’ our ‘independence’, Queen Bess isn’t a real Aussie (oi, oi, oi), why aren’t I the Governor General, etc – superficial and insulting.

      If Prince William’s visit gives a boost to constitutional monarchism in Australia, it will be a good thing.

    • David Donovan says:

      01:51pm | 19/01/10

      Yes, well I seem to remember the USA is a republic. Stable. Oh, and Ireland and Germany. Stable. France. Stable. The list goes on ad infinitum. It is not the Constitution that determines whether a country is stable, it is the peopel of the country itself. These sort of spurious arguments do little to enhance the cause of republicanism.

      As for having no media reps in Sydney or Melbourne—well, in fact we do. The point is that the three “main” spokespeople—who we would prefer to speak live on camera—live outside these centres. You see the ARM is a democratic organization that, despite some monarchist propoganda to the contrary, is not run by an elite out of Sydney and Melbourne. This means that at the moment, by chance, the spokespeople are the Movement don’t reside in the those two cities.

      We are doing some media in Sydney today, though. Keep watching the news.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:23pm | 19/01/10

      “Constitutional Monarchies simply provide a better foundation for stable, liberal democracy than republics.” Better go back to the history books on that one. Ignores succession wars of multiple claimants, power struggles between parliament and crown, civil wars against the crown, bitter sectarian struggles under the crown, power struggles where there is no legimate heir etc. Actually, you can say that for most of history, constitutional monarchies were anti-democratic and anti-liberal, since their aim was to consolidate or conserve as much power under the crown as possible and to support the status quo.

    • Damien says:

      01:28pm | 19/01/10

      I happy being a part of the monachy.

    • Beige says:

      01:46pm | 19/01/10

      “Constitutional monarchies simply provide a better foundation for stable, liberal democracy than republics.”

      Chortle. Try running that one past the French, the Germans,  the Swiss or the Yanks, mate.  Get a grip, do.

    • Alfred Deakin says:

      02:34pm | 19/01/10

      In 1942 we were attacked by a Monarchy and saved by a Republic.

    • Robbie says:

      04:11pm | 20/01/10

      Alf,your history lesson is impeccable.Fact 1:In 1942 we were attacked by a monarchy and saved by a republic.Fact 2:If said monarchy hadn’t given Pearl Harbour a touch up we would still be waiting to be saved by said republic.

    • stephen says:

      03:02pm | 19/01/10

      (Does D’oh rhyme with Bro’ ?)  Nothin’ wrong with bein’ a bogan, but your intelligence should be ‘central’.

    • Bob H says:

      03:07pm | 19/01/10

      In all my time in the UK I never once met anyone that admitted they liked the monarchy.  I can only assume the crowds that attended royal events were the results of the   “Care in the Community” program that closed down all the Mental Health Institutions and dumped them on the streets instead.

    • Confused says:

      03:15pm | 19/01/10

      I think everything about Australia’s heritage and future has been absolutely attacked today on The Punch. I mean this article says that this guy William doesn’t deserve our consideration…..well i’d rather him than Robert Mugabe visiting. Then another article says that Australia day is rubbish and just reinforces that Australians are racist and bogan and stupid. So we spit on the heritage that settled this country as one of it’s prominant members is here, and we spit on a National holiday that we now celebrate because anglo aussie have no right to be patriotic lest they be branded a racist…....we’ll I give up it seems like to matter which way you slice it the vast majority of this forum, hates our past, hates our present and is set on a path to hate it’s future. Can’t we all just be happy that the sun came up today and so be it if a foreign dignitary is here &  that next tuesday we don’t have to go to work!!!

    • Brad Coward says:

      03:22pm | 19/01/10

      Who cares about William’s Australian visit ?  Quite possibly far more than who will ever admit to having read an article written by David Donovan !  Come on, Mr Donovan.  If you honestly did not give a toss you wouldn’t have spent hours and hours preparing your piece for discussion !

    • Philip Crowley says:

      04:43pm | 19/01/10

      Who the hell is David Donovan?

    • Rloader says:

      05:50pm | 19/01/10

      If we go by the records of various Republics - say Zimbadwe, Russia, Congo,
      America - stable for the time being - France - not always stable, Germany - they elected Adolph Hitler, I would settle for the English Monarchy - stable for decades. If William would come to Australia to live then we would not need a Head of State chosen by politicians from politicians or Socialists.

    • Gerald Richards says:

      06:39pm | 19/01/10

      So we have William visiting and wants to “Get to know Australia” in three days by dropping in on Sydney and Melbourne. Yea right!  I got to know Indonesia by holidaying in a resort in Bali for a week. I got to know France by visiting Paris for three days. And I got to know the USA by visiting New York for four days.  In Bali I talked to the servants and guards for a total of three hours. In France I spoke to the ticket collectors and waiters for two hours. In New York I spoke to business people and taxi drivers for eight hours. And in France and the USA I stayed in Five Star hotels. So just like William, after my visits, I met the people and “Got to know them”. Further, I didn’t wait 27 years to return.
      Let me ask you monarchists this one question. “Do you know of anyone in the World that wishes to be the king of a country, yet actively campaigns against its interests, (World Cup) both in recognition and economically?” What William and his sycophantic followers wish to do is hunt with the hounds and run with the fox. Name me one other Head of State that would betray his country in such a fashion.

    • watty says:

      07:34pm | 19/01/10

      Bob H ...so glad you enjoyed your day out.

      If you ,like most Aussies ,hung around the “Aussie’ pubs in the “Court’ with the Rhodesians it is no wonder you only met other thick Aussies not the Brits.

    • Vic says:

      01:58am | 20/01/10

      I want a British head of state just about as much as the Brits would want an Australian head of state.

    • Simon says:

      04:04am | 20/01/10

      An embarrassment.

      The grandchild of a supposed head of state that really doesnt have anything to do with us at all

    • Lenny J says:

      10:12am | 20/01/10

      I care about the monarchy. I wish them well in all their endeavours as a royal family from a foreigh land who by accident of birth and by sword got the top job, that we once had some vague connection to.

      I care rahter more about it retiring itself permanently from Australian life and from all life, England included. I agree wholeheartedly that monarchies no longer have a place in a modern world.

      Australia is a democracy and it needs to focus on being completely independent of any other nation and does not need to or want to tug the forelock to anyone else, be they royal, rich or powerful.

      Let us focus all of our energies on further developing our democratic way of life where all citizens are equal under the law and under the reality of life. The lead citizen of Australia should be elected from the citizenry, live here and swear total allegience to this country. No exceptions, no complaints.

      I think, hope, dream and focus on this as a reality very, very soon. Long live Australia. A true and growing example of a real democratic nation.

    • Napolean says:

      10:17am | 20/01/10

      Yawn. If you want a Republic, you should have voted for it. If you think its a good idea that privilege and power should be based on who your mum was, you are a cringing peasant.

    • Sam says:

      01:01pm | 20/01/10

      William is a nice guy, a relatively good role model. I wish Australian youth would grow up in a place that frequently referred to a guy like William as our “Prince” or simply “His Majesty”. I reckon it would create a better country than to leave them idolising athletes and celebrities. Nevermind if he actually has any role to play in government or whether we are effectively a republic or a constitutional monarchy, that stuff is of little relevance to the population. Any country would be lucky to have a guy like William show some interest in it. He’s head and shoulders above the rest in the public’s eye. Especially youth, need good role models (even if their parents are great people).

      I also think if the English monarchy has nothing to do with Australia’s political or economic affairs, then where’s the incentive to simply rename our style of government from “constitutional monarchy” to “republic” (the words themselves seem meaningless to me).

      I think it’s safer for Australia’s future, if we continue to recognise our country’s historical ties with mother England rather than embark on a republican ego trip driven by remnants of Irish antiestablishmentarianism and American wannabes. It’s all good to feel liberated from a class system, but it would only be replaced by an economic class system which can’t be gotten rid of without abolishing private property. People tend to see classes because they need to know where they stand and who’s ahead of them and who’s behind them. Classes are here to stay, and most people would feel less aggrieved being “not royal”, than being “not rich” because at least they won’t feel like they’re being left behind as everyone around them gets richer. Monarchies are more stable than Republics because ultimately the people will tolerate irrational privilege for a small minority but won’t tolerate rampant privilege for everyone other than themselves (that’s how victim-role-players tend to think). In my opinion.

    • davrosz says:

      02:13pm | 20/01/10

      So….what’s it like back in the 16th century?

    • Sam says:

      03:15pm | 20/01/10

      @davrosz, it’s a little less hype and more substance.
      What’s it like in St. Albans?

    • peterd says:

      11:07pm | 20/01/10

      you consider a three day visit, the first in 28 years, interest? really?

    • davrosz says:

      11:44pm | 23/01/10

      where the hell is st albans. if that was an insult is missed its mark

    • proud aussie says:

      02:17pm | 20/01/10

      I am yet to hear a convincing reason for changing to a Republic.  Australia has the best system in the world - the Westminster System.  Remember, when Japan was being rebuilt after the war,  Douglas MacArthur searched for the best System to achieve prosperity and stability for Japan,  well into the future. MacArthur chose The Westminster System, and the rest is history.

      Australia has escaped many of the problems faced by so called Republics around the world.  There never has been, to my knowledge, a successful Republic.
      The Queen is part of our history, and has never interfered with our governance.  Her Majesty is Queen of the UK,  and has a separate role as Queen of Australia.  I like that,  to be perfectly honest.  I am proud of Australia’s heritage.
      The only reason I can see for abolishing our Monarchy would be to cancel out the’ checks and balances’ necessary to keep Govts open, honest and accountable.  For example, Gough Whitlam, who refused to call a Double Dissolution Election ,  because he knew he would lose, and ended up losing Govt instead, by being sacked.  Checks and balances.

      No doubt it would also be a HUGE cost to the Australian taxpayer to implement. the many changes necessary.( At a time when we have a massive debt, thanks to the Rudd Govt’s bad governance.)  For what gain? How would it make Australia a better place?  Some use the argument of Independence, growing up, being on our own - well we have all of that and more right now.

      Then there is our precious FLAG,.  Our diggers for under this Flag,  for this country’s freedom and that of her Allies.  Our Flag is Australia.

      I am in no hurry to ‘change’ what has worked in the past and is still working for this Nation.  Change is not always for the better, we have learnt this over the past two and a bit years.  Let us remain proud of our history and resolve to do all we can to protect and respect it.

    • davrosz says:

      04:46pm | 20/01/10

      there has never been a successful republic ????? are you out of your tiny gourd! what about america, switzerland, germany, france, etc, etc, etc…crikey, you monarchists never let facts get in the way of a feeble argument!

    • Ricky says:

      06:35pm | 20/01/10

      You say that ‘59% of Australians are republicans’.How did you come up with that number?Out of a hat?Personally i dont know one.Literally not one.And the majority of people i know or have heard consider republicans like yourself ranting eccentrics.Still sulking about the last referendum David…......

    • Fella says:

      09:25am | 21/01/10

      Rick, not all of us are from Britain or British ancestors and don’t really want a British Empire to be head of state.  Also I want the Union Jack off the flag,  no disrespect to diggers, however replacing the flag to have our own identity is essential to further development of Australia.  Its frustrating that the people who can’t deal with change just put up defences and say no.  All these comments about, orrh theres nothing wrong at the moment lets not change it,  what ?  you’ve never know anything different.  I bet if we became the Peoples Republic of Australia and the new system was a change for the better these people would be riding the gravy train saying they were behind it in the first place.  All in all the republic is not about shutting out the royals its about running our own show.  Soon enough when the kids start growing up they leave home, theres no ill feeling there is there ?

    • Lenny J says:

      07:55pm | 20/01/10

      For some of the unthinking remarkers such as SLF..
      I personally do not have any animosity to the royals, I am sure underneath that lot of unelected, unearned privilege beneficiaries, most of them are quite pleasant people.

      However, many monarchists miss the point entirely. The very concept of retaining a monarchical, non-democratic, born to rule system is an anachronism in a modern world. Leadership positions of great privilege should be earned at the ballot box, not inherited and should not be lifelong. No public office should be.

      Some people actually seem to think about this issue a little deeper than you do (SLF). If you want this country to remain unthinkingly mired in the past, that is fine for you…the rest of us are moving ahead as entire systems of government need to constantly.

      I repeat, the head of state of Australia needs absolutely to be an Australian citizen, nothing less is even remotely acceptable, regardless if they are nice, young, handsome and personable.

      BTW: a new flag and a new anthem would also be the subject of a citizen’s plebiscite. This is no way denigrates the efforts of Australian citizens who served and died in our many wars. I appreciate deeply their sacrifices.
      BTW. Let’s also see a plebisicite on whether we should become a republic. Ask the citizens, anything less is not democracy.

    • Justin says:

      12:54pm | 23/01/10

      I firmly believe that each and every Australian should have the right to vote for their Head of State and that, as Australians, we should pledge allegiance ONLY to that Head of State.

      However, your piece comes across as smug and sensationalist. Great for getting headlines and comments but not really for furthering the cause. 

      Instead of using your space to attempt to convince people why Australia should become a Republic, you’ve used it in an attempt to turn them off a 27 year old that was born into this position through no fault or want of his own. A whole piece giving credence to the institution you’re attempting to oust.

      If Australia is to become a republic, we need to start making people care about WHY we should become one and, at the end of the day, the only GOOD reason is patriotism. A desire to see an AUSTRALIAN as head of state. That’s it. The monarchy isn’t bad. We can’t say we’re tangibly worse off under a monarchy than we would be as a republic.

      If we’re to ever win this argument, we need to start being more constructive about why, not wasting space dissing the opposition. It’s cheap politics and doesn’t win people over.

    • David Donovan says:

      11:51pm | 23/01/10

      @Justin I made exactly the points you mentioned and i don’t feel i “dissed” william at all—merely stated the facts.

    • William Mohan says:

      08:09am | 29/01/10

      For people who say the don’t care about the monarchy, you sure are getting in a bit of a tiz over this visit.  Here in the UK we respect and are quite happy to have a constitutional monarch.  We are not forcing you Aussies to have it.  You can vote to get rid of it anytime.  Seem to remember you have had a vote and voted for the monarchy, quite the conundrum don’t you think.  But having seen that prince of charisma Kevin Rudd on Tv I have to say you sure do know how to pick leaders down under do you not.  Is it true that he ran away from the circus to join a bank.

    • davrosz says:

      07:10am | 30/01/10

      dead right, this debate has absolutely nothing to do with you.

 

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Let’s face it: What Paul McLeay’s done isn’t the worst thing in the world. It isn’t…

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

The Greens are now officially the far-left faction of the Australian Labor Party.  They have been…

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Question: A young Man being an apprentice, and having served about half his time, hath a very fair opportunity…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Enough with all the meat eating all ready

Edward James says:

Reducing the consumption of meat and sea food by 15%. What about the world population is it not increasing each year by the same or greater percentage? Those extra people are not all vegatarian they are eating meat and fish too. There is something strange about the maths message in your story. Our world… [read more]

From: The national policy agenda which nobody voted for

thatmosis says:

This whole process has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Here we have a Nation held captive by independants and a so called independant party called the Greens, aka the Raving Looney Party, whilst money is being wasted daily on public servants doing their usual thing, nothing but with bells on.… [read more]

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Scorchingly good and uncharacteristically sensible piece by @Joe_Hildebrand on the NSW Labor Party http://tinyurl.com/2896syw#ausvotes

Leo Shanahan

Like Shane Warne I can guarantee I haven't had a facelift. Can't speak for @penbo though, we don't call him Sza Sza for nothing.

Lucy Kippist

Five ingredients of a good advice column. New post by me: http://bit.ly/d6bbX3#thepunch

Leo Shanahan

@Alex_Carlton there is no nice way for me to say i want to here that right now.

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Warning: this has nothing to do with politics. We thought we’d see how the Prime Minister and Opposition… Read more

26 comments

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter