The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...

[AfricanAUSSIE]

It will cost you more money to become a republic and the English royals is also your royals. The Queen is Australia's head of state.

You sure about that? These visits are sure to add up!

In my opinion, they are not our royals. They are English and have no power over us. It is symbolic only. Hence why it has no real purpose for us.

 

[muriel]

In my opinion, they are not our royals. They are English and have no power over us. It is symbolic only. Hence why it has no real purpose for us.

We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.

And not only that but they are 'British' not 'English'

 

[Osipi]

And not only that but they are 'British' not 'English'

Another thing if I've learned anything from my time here at TRF is that Australia only has The Queen of Australia. Her family doesn't figure into it and only use their British titles there by courtesy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Canada regularly has multiple visits by the senior royals even to the extent of one leaving and another arriving. For the rest of us it is unusual - particularly when Charles and Camilla were here only three years ago and the last time Charles visited before that was in 2005, just before he married Camilla.

The cynic in me suggests that Charles asked to come to remind Australians and New Zealanders which of the royals is the heir to the throne after visits by Harry, twice and William, Kate and George only last year.

The country being visited has to issue an invitation of course but I am sure that hints could be made.

True in 1999 we voted 'No' to the republican model on offer - as what the polls have consistently shown is that people want to directly elect the President but we have never been asked the simple question 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?'. At the moment the polls suggest that would get a 'No' vote but as it isn't on the agenda, at the moment, it is really a moot point. If it was back on the table those figures could change drastically (take a look at the polls in the lead up to the most recent UK elections that have everyone predicting another coalition government but instead the Conservatives won with a small majority). Who knows, therefore, how accurate any polls are?


The 160th anniversary of Charles' former Australian school - Geelong Grammar - may also have something to do with his visit. That was a major focus of his visit in 2005.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.

I voted No because I did not accept the model put up. Had they asked me if I wanted a republic, I would have voted YES.

 

[COUNTESS]

I voted No because I did not accept the model put up. Had they asked me if I wanted a republic, I would have voted YES.

I, think, after the queen is gone, there will be changes is many Commonwealth Nations. Having a foreign head of state makes no sense.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I, think, after the queen is gone, there will be changes is many Commonwealth Nations. Having a foreign head of state makes no sense.

I agree. In any case, I would argue that we are more aligned with the US than UK. Look at how many of your force are here. And how many more are scheduled to arrive!

 

[VictoriaB]

I agree. In any case, I would argue that we are more aligned with the US than UK. Look at how many of your force are here. And how many more are scheduled to arrive!

I disagree. I don't think there will be too much change. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are already republics. There is no equivalent US led group that I am aware of and, again, most countries are already aligned with the U.S.

There might be a rotating Head of the Commonwealth rather than it being the Monarch but I can't honestly see many, if any, countries electing to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Iluvbertie]

I know many people who did likewise. I must admit I voted NO because at the time I supported the monarchy for Australia but since joining TRF I have been converted to the republican cause - thanks to everyone here who opened my eyes and changed my opinion on this issue.

 

[Tarlita]

The problem as I see it - is that the Republicans in Australia have to come up with a REPUBLICAN MODEL that we Australians will accept. Then we might vote in favour of it. However, while Her Majesty is on the throne most will be happy to stay as we are. When Charles becomes King, I could see a very different view from the general population.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

The problem as I see it - is that the Republicans in Australia have to come up with a REPUBLICAN MODEL that we Australians will accept. Then we might vote in favour of it. However, while Her Majesty is on the throne most will be happy to stay as we are. When Charles becomes King, I could see a very different view from the general population.

I agree.

 

[eya]

I don't understand why the things changing when Charles become King?

Queen have the respect all the world i beleive. Charles i don't know if he have the time to win the respect as a King of course.

 

[Tarlita]

The Queen has earned a lot of respect from Australians, and probably from people all around the world. Where-as a King Charles will come to the throne with a lot of baggage attached to his years as Prince of Wales. He will have a long way to go to earn the respect his mother enjoys.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree, although Charles is respected, if not loved, for his hard work in the Princes Trust and his other charitable causes.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Queen's man in Australia urged to make first political intervention in 40 years - Telegraph

For decades they have languished on the sidelines of the Australian government as colonial relics, with a largely ceremonial role.

But the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General, could be forced to make a highly unusual foray into politics after he was urged to sack a royal commissioner accused of bias.

The motion would mark perhaps the most dramatic political intervention by the office since Sir John Kerr famously dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

The opposition Labor party plans to call on Sir Peter Cosgrove to sack Dyson Heydon, who heads a royal commission into trade unions.

Labor alleges that Justice Heydon has “failed to uphold the standards of impartiality expected of a holder of the office of royal commissioner” after it emerged that he agreed to speak at a ruling Liberal party function.

 

[Muhler]

Interesting.
But unless there is an Australian political majority or a public outcry representing the majority of the Australians, why should the Governor General do anything?

Isn't that just an example of the opposition sulking? If the official in question had visited a fundraiser for the opposition, would they have complained?

So this is a big deal, because...?

 

[Rudolph]

The Australian Republic Movement is starting to get active again. But does anyone care?

When Charles and Diana visited with William the then PM of Australia promised a republic by decades end and here we are 30 years later. I know the party line is to say its 'inevitable' but republicans in Britain have been saying this since the reign of Queen Victoria.

The Australian Republican Movement has a new figurehead - a football playing patriot who is not backwards about coming forwards with a colourful turn of phrase. As The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons prepares to make his first speech as chair of the movement's national committee, we look at the five things that need to happen before anyone starts paying attention.

Read more: Five things that need to happen before Australia becomes a republic

 

[Ish]

The Australian Republic Movement is starting to get active again. But does anyone care?

When Charles and Diana visited with William the then PM of Australia promised a republic by decades end and here we are 30 years later. I know the party line is to say its 'inevitable' but republicans in Britain have been saying this since the reign of Queen Victoria.


Read more: Five things that need to happen before Australia becomes a republic

Just on the who cares, I would suspect at least half the Australian members of this board care.

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ That's the headline from the article, not mine.

 

[Curryong]

The journalist writing that article certainly doesn't seem to be exactly brimming with enthusiasm!

 

[Iluvbertie]

While we have a monarchist PM the republic issue will remain on the back burner. However when the PM and Leader of the Opposition are both republicans AND we are in a new reign the situation may very well change. It won't happen while The Queen is alive - that is basically a given these days - but with Charles as King - situation will probably change and I personally hope so. It is time for an Australian to be our Head of State and not a foreigner on the other side of the world but I accept it is still probably at least another decade or more away before we get to have another vote and if they get the question right it will get up but it needs not just the majority of the people to actually support the idea but for the question asked to be supported which wasn't the case in 1999 when the Republican Movement itself was divided on the question.

 

[Muhler]

If it's a personality issue, would W&K be more palatable?

 

[Tarlita]

I don't believe it is a personality issue. I believe the great majority of Australians want to Know - What Type of Republican Model are we to have. And so far that has not been clearly defined. Do we take up the French model of republican governess or make up our own type of Republican institution. As that has not been made clear then we remain attached to Britain and the monarchy.

 

[Roslyn]

I don't believe it's a personality issue, either. It's a question of whether or not enough Australians consider that having an Australian Head of State is sufficiently important to go through the hassle and expense of changing all the stationery and signs and changing the currency.

The fact we have a Queen and that she has a role in our constitution doesn't have any real impact on our day to day lives. New citizens no longer have to pledge allegiance to the Queen of Australia; school children no longer recite "I honour my God, I serve my Queen, I salute my flag" at assemblies every week; "God Save the Queen" is no longer played in cinemas before the movie starts. The Queen is simply not part of our day to day lives any more.

The women who like to see photos of royal babies and care what Kate is wearing will still be able to buy the magazines that feature that sort of stuff if we become a republic. We'll still be in the Commonwealth so participation in the Games won't stop.

I think it's a matter of working out the right strategy and asking the right questions. I think that first there needs to be an assessment of the population's level of general interest in becoming a republic, and, if the public confirm that they want an Australian Head of State, then a republican commission or whatever you want to call it could be convened to thrash out those issues and work out some fairly specific models to put to the public for a final vote to decide what our republic would look like. The mistake last time was to ask the public to vote on only one model; it was an all or nothing deal. I'm actually a bit surprised that more than 45% of us voted for it 15 years ago.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

Australian Republicanism: flushing your history down the toilet. You have a home grown head of state: the Governor General. Not pledging allegiance to the Queen of Australia, not having children honor your Queen, God and flag, it is all a part of erasing Australia and turning it into a multicultural disaster. It is happening here in the US where displaying the US flag is considered racist and controversial, where they want to remove former presidents from our money, where our history books are rewritten. Once you lose your traditions, your history, your nation, you never get them back.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

I would further point out that the Hawaiian flag contains the Union Jack and we harbor no fear of the Earl of Sandwich laying claim over our 50th state.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Australian Republicanism: flushing your history down the toilet. You have a home grown head of state: the Governor General. Not pledging allegiance to the Queen of Australia, not having children honor your Queen, God and flag, it is all a part of erasing Australia and turning it into a multicultural disaster. It is happening here in the US where displaying the US flag is considered racist and controversial, where they want to remove former presidents from our money, where our history books are rewritten. Once you lose your traditions, your history, your nation, you never get them back.

Our Head of State is The Queen - a foreigner.

The GG is the Queen's representative.

We stopped pledging allegiance at schools somewhere around the late 60s early 70s (I was still saying in 1969 but not in 1970 when I changed schools and my similarly aged friends have similar memories so there are now two + generations who have grown up without saying any such pledge. One colleague was teaching in the 1960s and his school stopped the pledge in his second year as a teacher - 1966 (he is retiring this year after 50 years as a teacher - fantastic teacher and fantastic role model for young teachers).

Australia is a multi-cultural country and has been since the very beginning with a number of non-British people on the First Fleet (there was at least one African-American who had been taken to Britain as a slave and then freed and committed a transportable offence). By the mid-1850s we had Chinese, Afghanis, Japanese and a range of other Europeans due to the gold rush and other needs. Since the end of WWII we have taken in refugees from all world conflicts and now are extremely multicultural and we are a wonderful country as a result with most people respecting each other's cultures and enjoying learning about them and sharing them.

Far from being a disaster our multiculturalism has added to our culture rather than detracted from it - it has broadened the culture.

Of course the fact that many of the newer settlers to Australia come from countries with no ties to Britain removes the psychological tie to the British monarchy. The ethnic make-up of Australia is quite diverse with over 1/3 of the country having both parents born overseas according to the last census in 2011. Almost, if not, every country on earth has someone who lives here permanently and it works.

 

[Curryong]

We will just have to wait and see, won't we, as to whether there will be another referendum in a few years and whether this one will do any better than the last. I can remember a whole host of celebs, actors and politicians etc lining up to tell the Australian people to vote Yes last time. People didn't listen then and probably won't next time.

For a huge change like this you don't just want to fall over the line. You need a clear solid majority of people voting in favour, otherwise it will be a division which may cause resentments.

 

[Roslyn]

I think it's rather simplistic to say that people didn't listen last time and probably won't next time. Over 45% of people voted for the republic last time, and that was for a model that was not popular. Had a different question been asked, it is quite possible we would have been been a republic already.