King Charles & Queen Camilla - Visit to Australia and Samoa: October 2024

[Hallo girl]

Thank you for saying this Hans-Rickard. Like you I agree that Australians (or New Zealanders, Canadians, Jamaicans etc...) should be the ones to determine their future. I also believe that whomever is the monarch at that time will graciously step aside if a realm decides to become a republic.
That being said, the behavior of some of the State Premiers is disappointing to say the least IMO.

It says more about themselves than it does about the King.

 

[muriel]

I think the position of BP has been clear under QE2 and KC3. If the people of Australia (or any other realm) want a President and not a King, they are free to make that choice. It is for the elected government of the day to hold the necessary referenda, and replace the monarch, following due constitutional and legal processes.

The British monarchy does not gain any kudos nor does the King derive any benefit from being Head of State of Australia. It is a matter purely for the people of Australia.

 

[Mbruno]

Apologies if this is off topic, but please could someone explain to me why (in reference to the Daily Mail article) one of the state premiers has renamed Anzac Day? I've always been under the impression that Anzac Day (also marked here in Lancashire, as Gallipoli Day, as many members of the Lancashire Fusiliers sadly lost their lives that day, alongside many soldiers from Australia and New Zealand), was considered to be very important in Australia.

Although I would be sad to see Australia become a republic, I understand why people may feel that Australia needs its own Head of State, rather than someone who lives on the other side of the world. However, I really don't see the need to decapitate a statue of George V. But that seems to be the way that protesters carry on these days - don't get me started on people who block roads, or throw paint to spoil other people's enjoyment of sporting events!

Support for the republic is pretty much at a low right now according to the polls. I don’t see any realistic chance of the monarchy being replaced by a republic in the near future.

 

[Durham]

With a republic the questions are:

Elected or appointed ?

If appointed, by who?

If elected – direct or indirect election?

What powers would any president have?

How would the constitution have to change?

What would the relationship be between the states & a president?

In my opinion the ARM would be best served by conducting themselves in a reasoned & respectful manner. Snubbing their head of state is not a good look. After all, the last time the Australian people were asked, a clear majority said no to a republic so it’s not as if the present system does not have democratic legitimacy.

And Australians live in an increasingly dangerous corner of the world. That’s why they want nuclear subs. Being in a personal union with not just the UK but also Canada & NZ won’t go unnoticed in Beijing. Any conflict in the Pacific would involve the Royal Australian Navy & its vessals prefixed by HMAS – His Majesty’s Australian Ship. Intangible as this may seem symbols do matter in international relations.

 

[irish_royalist]

I do not believe that most people who would vote ‘Yes’ to an Australian republic in any future referendum are automatically members of the ARM. Just as Australians who would vote ‘No’ would be as a matter of course members of the ‘Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy’ association.

I do know however that Sky News and Ben Fordham are both of a conservative stamp, and the fact that a convenor of the Australians For a Constitutional Monarchy group was invited to comment live on the ad (which I haven’t seen and will take no notice of anyway) says plenty about the bias shown on that particular programme.

My views are my own. I don’t take my opinions from external forces (whoever they are) pushing their agendas.

I voted to retain the monarchy in the sole referendum on the subject held nearly a quarter of a century ago. I have changed my mind since. I feel Australia needs its own Head of State who is Australian, not a royal person who visits on average every couple of years or so, (not that I would welcome more frequent royal tours.) And so I will vote accordingly next time.

Calm down! I'm not sure there is a need for bold-type?
We can all read your message accurately without it!

The King has already said that he will support the will of the people of Australia regarding their Head of State in a referendum. If you can find someone better, he will accede to that.

In the meantime, he IS your Head of State.

 

[Alison H]

The new UK government's only been in power for five minutes and has already been involved in a list of scandals involving free concert tickets, free designer clothes, using party donors' flats for jollies, etc etc. As a president would presumably come from one of the current political parties, I'll take a hereditary constitutional monarchy over elected politicians any day. However, I'm not sure that I'd be very keen on having a head of state who lived on the other side of the world, so I take the Australian republican movement's point. But I think it's rather rude of the state premiers not to attend the reception.

The journey from the UK to Australia's gruelling even for someone in perfect health. But I'm sure that the King wouldn't be going if his medical team had advised against it.