• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should Australia become a Republic?

anglolawyer

Banned
anglolawyer
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
13,037
Location
Guilford
I get all my news from the Daily Mail these days. It's actually quite fun to read if you are interested in house prices, celebs, royalty and such. Today there are two stories about the recent visit to Australia of Prince William, Kate and George.

There is this one:

Bye, George! Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's little prince bids farewell as Royal tour of Australia comes to an end
The 19-day Royal tour comes to an end as the Duke and Duchess leave Canberra
The family boarded a plane to Sydney at 2.30pm before boarding another flight back to England
Prince George looked a little disgruntled as his parents said farewell to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott
William and Kate spent their last day in Australia attending an Anzac Day service of remembrance
Anzac Day commemorates all Australians and New Zealanders who served and died in all wars and conflicts
Click to expand...
and this shocker:

Australian PM Tony Abbott accused of breaching royal protocol after he put arm around William
It's Bodyline 2.0 as Aussie PM pats the Duke of Cambridge on the back
The Parliament House gaffe was not Abbott's first of the royal tour
Mimics 'Lizard of Oz' PM Paul Keating who hugged the Queen in 1992
Latest in a string of royal 'faux palms'
Click to expand...

Now, I heard a republican Aussie on the radio yesterday answering questions suggesting that his cause has diminished in popularity in recent years and that fewer people want to get shot of the useless layabouts monarchy. He was very civil and polite in saying Australia wishes to maintain its close ties with the mother country but nevertheless to be wholly independent of it, presumably meaning there would no longer be a governor general appointed by her Maj to dissolve parliament when the colonials get too bumptious.

Personally, if I were an Australian, I would invite the entire royal family over and feed them to the crocs but I wonder what real, live antipodians (spelling?) think of our wonderful royals? It seems we are doomed to have them for centuries which makes the question less interesting here.

ETA I am surprised to see the guy with the sticky-out ears has become PM as I thought he was mauled beyond recovery by her with the strong accent over some misogynist remarks in a famous speech which was widely circulated in the internet. What happened?
 
Last edited:
The system works pretty well as is, and the bits that aren't working so well have nothing to do with the royals, so why change?
 
If it works don't fix it IOW. What about just not liking (this particular kind of) embarrassing, anachronistic patronage, privilege and flummery and abolishing them just like other outdated things get abolished? What harm would it do?
 
I see magpies with a fully grown juvenile sometimes. It will stand there and demand food while it's parents feed it. England stopped feeding us years ago, but we still haven't realised we are not dependant on them, and they aren't going to actually do anything for us beyond the normal courtesy they would display any other country. In terms of politics, we look to the USA first, second and third for any military support. When we visit England, we go in the "Aliens" aisle along with the rest of world.

The useless layabouts who turning up here are doing it just because it keeps them in a cushy job.

The Queen visited here years ago. I just happened to be in the street as she passed by in a motorcade. They wizzed by, there was a quick glimpse of a middel aged woman, the crowd went wild. I just scratched my head.
 
anglolawyer said:
If it works don't fix it IOW. What about just not liking (this particular kind of) embarrassing, anachronistic patronage, privilege and flummery and abolishing them just like other outdated things get abolished? What harm would it do?
Click to expand...

The crazy thing is, the Republicans, (that is, not Monarchists), had the numbers till Diana's son got married to a looker and had a baby. This is no different to supporting a pop group. :( Embarassing. :o
 
anglolawyer said:
I get all my news from the Daily Mail these days.
Click to expand...
Really? The websites of the Guardian and the Independent are still free to visit. And the Beeb, of course.

anglolawyer said:
There is this one:
Click to expand...
Why is there a caption under two photos of Kate, saying she wore a poppy brooch, while said brooch is nearly completely obscured by her hair in those very two photos?
 
Cleon said:
I read that sentence and got incredibly depressed.
Click to expand...

On another thread someone is asking whether anyone ever changes their mind here at JREF as a result of the arguments of others. I am not sure whether I have yet changed mine on anything but I have certainly changed my reading habits. If I want news and in-depth understanding of current events that interest me I read and discuss the topics here. So I don't bother with a newspaper anymore, which is why I have time for the Mail, which is just a tabloid rag but also fun.
 
ddt said:
Really? The websites of the Guardian and the Independent are still free to visit. And the Beeb, of course.
Click to expand...
I dabble in the Independent and the Beeb and my SO feeds me snippets from the Guardian. I may have slightly exaggerated in saying I get all my news from the Mail.:D


Why is there a caption under two photos of Kate, saying she wore a poppy brooch, while said brooch is nearly completely obscured by her hair in those very two photos?
Click to expand...
Good question! This could precipitate a constitutional crisis of significant proportions! I am surprised her gross disrespect did not start a full-scale diplomatic row at least. These are the sorts of questions that preoccupy the Mail readers of Middle England.
 
a_unique_person said:
I see magpies with a fully grown juvenile sometimes. It will stand there and demand food while it's parents feed it. England stopped feeding us years ago, but we still haven't realised we are not dependant on them, and they aren't going to actually do anything for us beyond the normal courtesy they would display any other country. In terms of politics, we look to the USA first, second and third for any military support. When we visit England, we go in the "Aliens" aisle along with the rest of world.

The useless layabouts who turning up here are doing it just because it keeps them in a cushy job.

The Queen visited here years ago. I just happened to be in the street as she passed by in a motorcade. They wizzed by, there was a quick glimpse of a middel aged woman, the crowd went wild. I just scratched my head.
Click to expand...

Surely Australians realized that as far back as I can remember to the 1970s. The reason the country didn't become a republic through the 1999 referendum was that Australians were not offered a presidential model that they liked.
 
Disclaimer: I am not an Aussie!!

I think the relationship both the UK and Australia have with the monarchy is one in which a particular celebrity is popular enough to not be discarded.

The Queen is, after all, inoffensive and personally respectable. She's gradually become a sort of well-liked if not entirely loved grandmother (now great-grandmother) and soppy Brits find it difficult to give an inoffensive old lady a hard time.

Now, when Charles takes over it will be another matter. I think his inability to charm people, in the way that his doe-eyed wet blouse of a first wife was able to do, will summon up a bit more resentment at the idea that he ostensibly reigns over the country.

Of course, Kate and Bill seem to have hired good PR and are sensible and photogenic enough to be well-liked so they might be able to pull it off.

However, as an institution, which is a much more important point, the monarchy is probably not on many people's minds (perhaps for the better from the monarch's POV). But there is one area where I think the monarchy is still popular and that is within the military. And that's in both the UK and Australia from what I can gather.

tl;dr: If each monarch can be a popular and low key celebrity the monarchy will endure in the UK and Australia.
 
angrysoba said:
Disclaimer: I am not an Aussie!!

I think the relationship both the UK and Australia have with the monarchy is one in which a particular celebrity is popular enough to not be discarded.

The Queen is, after all, inoffensive and personally respectable. She's gradually become a sort of well-liked if not entirely loved grandmother (now great-grandmother) and soppy Brits find it difficult to give an inoffensive old lady a hard time.

Now, when Charles takes over it will be another matter. I think his inability to charm people, in the way that his doe-eyed wet blouse of a first wife was able to do, will summon up a bit more resentment at the idea that he ostensibly reigns over the country.

Of course, Kate and Bill seem to have hired good PR and are sensible and photogenic enough to be well-liked so they might be able to pull it off.

However, as an institution, which is a much more important point, the monarchy is probably not on many people's minds (perhaps for the better from the monarch's POV). But there is one area where I think the monarchy is still popular and that is within the military. And that's in both the UK and Australia from what I can gather.

tl;dr: If each monarch can be a popular and low key celebrity the monarchy will endure in the UK and Australia.
Click to expand...

Decidedly off topic … but I'm joining in! I really liked the story about Charles's letters remaining secret. You know about this? It seems he has a habit of firing off letters to various government departments sounding off on his pet topics. This is constitutionally dubious because the Queen and, I guess soon-to-be king are supposed to keep their noses out and not use their privileged position to exert influence.

So, someone made a FOI request and it was turned down by the Attorney General (a chinless wonder) on the ground that the Prince was 'practising for kingship' and that this justified privacy, or secrecy. Better lawyers than me looked up the FOIA and surprisingly could not find anything therein about the 'practising for kingship' legal exception so the case continues with the request for info being maintained.

Here is what we did wrong. In 1649 we chopped off Charles II head. That was good. But then in, I dunno, 1660(?) we let his nipper back in. As a consequence we remain deferential and expected to be grateful for things that are simply ours already. This is what is wrong with the monarchy really, the paternalist idea that we are humble, inferior beings who should be grateful for the rights and privileges conferred upon us by a benign monarch. That plus the army of flunkies and useless hangers-on and wannabes surrounding the whole circus that distort democratic processes by skewing priorities with political patronage.

And I don't care that the alternatives are supposedly worse even if they are which I do not believe anyway.

What do the Aussies think? :)
 
anglolawyer said:
I dabble in the Independent and the Beeb and my SO feeds me snippets from the Guardian. I may have slightly exaggerated in saying I get all my news from the Mail.:D
Click to expand...
Thank you for reassuring me.

anglolawyer said:
Good question! This could precipitate a constitutional crisis of significant proportions! I am surprised her gross disrespect did not start a full-scale diplomatic row at least. These are the sorts of questions that preoccupy the Mail readers of Middle England.
Click to expand...
LOL.
Information Analyst said:
Because it's ANZAC Day.
Click to expand...
I understand the poppy (in Flanders' fields). And it's clearly visible in a number of the photos on that page. However, the very two photos that were captioned with "Kate wore a poppy brooch" are photos where the brooch is nearly totally obscured by her hair.
 
Should anyone but actual Australians ("cobbers, blokes and mytes"*) have an opinion?

I like the idea of Oz quite a bit; most of the actual Aussies with whom I interact are bonzer; my partner was charmed by NSW while on residency there.

Howsomever, the fact of the matter is, I can't qualify to immigrate--and it would be as pointless of me to get my stones in a vise about this issue, as it would be for (hypothetically) a supposed Aussie to winge about the way the US Tax Code is enforced, or to foment insurrection against the US gummint.

It will be fun to watch, either way.

ETA: *that's a quote from the actual national anthem, innit?
 
Last edited:
Vive la République!

If we could ever get the damn thing born anyway. :)

Sideroxylon is correct. I had some involvement in the republican movement back in the 90's, and the main reason why the referendum failed was that no alternative was proposed that people believed they liked.

I say believed because there was a heck of a lot of misinformation around. Most Australian's were (probably still are) clueless not only about how the Governor General is slected, but surprisingly, also the Prime Minister, not to mention the US President.

If you listen though, what was wanted was a popularly elected President that was not a politician - in other words an impossibility.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Should anyone but actual Australians ("cobbers, blokes and mytes"*) have an opinion?

I like the idea of Oz quite a bit; most of the actual Aussies with whom I interact are bonzer; my partner was charmed by NSW while on residency there.

Howsomever, the fact of the matter is, I can't qualify to immigrate--and it would be as pointless of me to get my stones in a vise about this issue, as it would be for (hypothetically) a supposed Aussie to winge about the way the US Tax Code is enforced, or to foment insurrection against the US gummint.

It will be fun to watch, either way.

ETA: *that's a quote from the actual national anthem, innit?
Click to expand...

We can have an opinion but maybe not a vote. I like the Aussies too.
 
In practical terms, what would it mean for Australia to become a "republic?" What is it now? My impression is that the Australian system today is similar to the U.S.'s and Canada's, with a freely elected (in fact, voting is legally required in Australia, right?) national government and six states with their own governments. What role does the monarchy actually play? How would the daily life of the average Australian change?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom