Thread: End of Australia's monarchy?

Just think of a monarchy in the US with as royal family either 'Bush' or 'Kennedy' and you have your answer.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Now I admit that I know dick about Aussie politics, but this doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, what would really change if Australia became a republic?

PM says Australia should become republic - CNN.com

Well, for starters, they wouldn't have to pay as much lip-service to that ossified human turd, the Queen.

Australian's want a sense of indendpendence instead of having a head of state that lives in another country.

We had an unsuccessful refereundum in the 1990s. Then PM John Howard who ias an avowed monarchist did his very best to sabotage the vote by proposing a model that no one wanted. What resulted was that although a majority of the population wanted to be an independent republic, the majority didn't like the model that was proposed, and so voted against it. I also voted against it for that reason. The issue cooled somewhat, but it always surfaces a couple of times a year. I doubt though we'll see any movement on it in the next five years.

Originally Posted by noahath

...The issue cooled somewhat, but it always surfaces a couple of times a year. I doubt though we'll see any movement on it in the next five years.

I think that you will see an increase in the move towards being a republic in both Australia and New Zealand when Queen Elizabeth dies and Charles becomes King.

In Canada there will also be some increase in support for being a Republic when the Queen dies but it will not be as strong a support as in the other two countries since we will never be able to agree on the form of government because of the French-English thing. Neither side will support whatever the other side is proposing.

The Queen is personally popular and Charles is not. (IMHO Charles has gotten a bad rap in the press and is not fairly portrayed in all his accomplishments. The press has instead concentrated on a few specific gaffs that he has made and largely ignored his accomplishments.)

Originally Posted by RDK

I think that you will see an increase in the move towards being a republic in both Australia and New Zealand when Queen Elizabeth dies and Charles becomes King.

In Canada there will also be some increase in support for being a Republic when the Queen dies but it will not be as strong a support as in the other two countries since we will never be able to agree on the form of government because of the French-English thing. Neither side will support whatever the other side is proposing.

The Queen is personally popular and Charles is not. (IMHO Charles has gotten a bad rap in the press and is not fairly portrayed in all his accomplishments. The press has instead concentrated on a few specific gaffs that he has made and largely ignored his accomplishments.)

There's a feeling here that Charles will pass on the throne and let William take it up...(HMQE2 could still be on the throne in another 20 years or more and Cammila's also not seen as Queen/consort material)...if that happened what do you think Australia's, NZ and Canada's position would be?

Originally Posted by RDK

I think that you will see an increase in the move towards being a republic in both Australia and New Zealand when Queen Elizabeth dies and Charles becomes King.

In Canada there will also be some increase in support for being a Republic when the Queen dies but it will not be as strong a support as in the other two countries since we will never be able to agree on the form of government because of the French-English thing. Neither side will support whatever the other side is proposing.

The Queen is personally popular and Charles is not. (IMHO Charles has gotten a bad rap in the press and is not fairly portrayed in all his accomplishments. The press has instead concentrated on a few specific gaffs that he has made and largely ignored his accomplishments.)

I think you're right. When the Queen passes, that will stir the debate again. Charles is very unpopular here, which is rather sad given that from what I've read and heard, he is one of the most intelligent and articulate people one could ever hope to meet. He just fails to translate any warmth through his personality.

The thought of that "hearthrob" Prince William sitting on the throne for 40 years doesn't do anything for you?

Originally Posted by Commodore

The thought of that "hearthrob" Prince William sitting on the throne for 40 years doesn't do anything for you?

Oh it certainly does! I personally prefer the looks of Princess Anne's son, Peter Phillips though.

Originally Posted by Renton

There's a feeling here that Charles will pass on the throne and let William take it up....

....if that happened what do you think Australia's, NZ and Canada's position would be?

As a guess the impetus towards becoming republics would lessen as William is seen in a good light and his personality comes through the media quite well.

In Canada it is the French/English split that will keep us from becoming a republic. Under the Canadian constitution both Quebec and Ontario have to agree to any constructional change based on their population. Several smaller provinces also have to join in but the reality is that constitutional battles are fought and won in these two provinces.

Since I doubt if these two provinces could agree on something as sweeping as changing the monarchy to a republican form of government, we will be stuck with the current constitutional monarchy system for the foreseeable future.

About the only way we would get rid of the monarchy would be if the sovereign was so objectionable to the vast majority of Canadians, and the heir apparent was considered not much better, that we would be forced to join forces and agree on such a massive change to the political landscape.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Well, for starters, they wouldn't have to pay as much lip-service to that ossified human turd, the Queen.

I think that's a disgusting thing to say. I can't think what the Queen has done to you to warrant such verbal abuse.

The Queen is very popular in Britain, one of the most popular monarchs in the millenium-old monarchy (older than that if you count the kings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms). She's been on the Throne since she was a young woman in 1952 and, when most 84 year olds are long retired, she still works hard almost every day serving her people. You may not agree with constutional monarchy even though, in my opinion, it's the best system of governance in the world as, for one, we don't have a politician as a Head of State, but remember that the Queen, unlike politicians, did not seek to become who she is. It was a complete accident of birth. She may not have wanted to be Queen but had to. Barack Obama, on the other hand, deliberately set out to live in a big palace (and the White House IS a palace) and lord it over the populace. Britain's monarchs don't.

As for Australians, they can ditch the monarchy if they want. I don't think most people in Britain really care. Most probably think Australia is a republic anyway. We're not going to get rid of the monarchy.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Now I admit that I know dick about Aussie politics, but this doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, what would really change if Australia became a republic?

PM says Australia should become republic - CNN.com

The British monarchy is mostly symbolic and basically a figurehead one.

This is very different from Saudi Arabia's monarchy, for example. King Abdullah has real power, whereas Queen Elizabeth is mostly just a cultural figurehead.

So, in practical terms, the Queen isn't relevant to Australian policies. Making the switch to a republic would be more practical and would symbolically be a progressive move, but for all intensive purposes, Australia functions as a parliamentarian republic.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

The British monarchy is mostly symbolic and basically a figurehead one.

This is very different from Saudi Arabia's monarchy, for example. King Abdullah has real power, whereas Queen Elizabeth is mostly just a cultural figurehead.

So, in practical terms, the Queen isn't relevant to Australian policies. Making the switch to a republic would be more practical and would symbolically be a progressive move, but for all intensive purposes, Australia functions as a parliamentarian republic.

It would be undemocratic for Britain's monarch to have any political power. Britain is now a Constitutional Monarchy, whereas Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy. The Queen and other members of the Royal Family are not even allowed to vote in General Elections. Britain got rid of its undemocratic Absolute Monarchy in the 17th Century, about 140 years before France did.

There are quite a lot of Constitutional Monarchies in the world today. Apart from Britain and Australia, there are also Canada, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Cambodia, Belize, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Monaco, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, UAE, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Japan. Until recently, Bhutan was an Absolute Monarcy but is now a Constitutional Monarchy.

The constitutional monarchy has many advantages over a republic.

1) Constitutional monarchies don't have politicians as their Head of State (a great advantage if you ask me). Our Head of State is politicially impartial and is removed from the political, commercial, and factional interests which plague presidents.

2) They provide stability in a way that republics don't. For example, Britain has the same Head of State now that it did way back in 1952 when Britain still suffered from food rationing and our cities were rubble. That's amazing. Republics, however, chop and change their Head of State every few years. Since 1952, how many Heads of State have America, or France, had?

3) Contrary to popular belief, Britain's monarchy is cheaper than most republics. Last year, it cost just £34 million - that means that each British person paid just 62p, the price of a chocolate bar, for the whole year. To put that £34 million into perspective, each year the Pentagon spends approximately $185 million just on travel expenses for the President and his top aides

4) A constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

Originally Posted by Sir Drinkalot

It would be undemocratic for Britain's monarch to have any political power. Britain is now a constitutional monarchy, whereas Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy. The Queen and other members of the Royal Family are not even allowed to vote in General Elections.

But the constitutional monarchy has many advantages over a republic.

1) Constitutional monarchies don't have politicians as their Head of State (a great advantage if you ask me). Our Head of State is politicially impartial and is removed from the political, commercial, and factional interests which plague presidents.

2) They provide stability in a way that republics don't. For example, Britain has the same Head of State now that it did way back in 1952 when Britain still suffered from food rationing and our cities were rubble. That's amazing. Republics, however, chop and change their Head of State every few years. Since 1952, how many Heads of State have America, or France, had?

3) Britain's monarchy is cheaper than most republics. Last year, it cost just £34 million - that means that each British person paid just 62p, the price of a chocolate bar. That's was for the whole year. To put that £34 million into perspective, each year the Pentagon spends approximately $185 million on travel expenses for the President and his top aides

4) A constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

Oh, there's definitely advantages to having a figurehead, but I personally favor the changes that being a republic entails. I prefer transience over stability when it comes to political movements, but that's a different discussion altogether.