In regard to the forthcoming wedding my response is an emphatic WHO GIVES A TOSS?!

My main argument against the monarchy is somewhat different to the Australian Republican Movement. I am appalled by the idea of anyone being born into lucrative positions of privilege. Imagine the idea of going for any job only to find you can't have it because it has been earmarked for someone born into the right family. For Liberals who go on about working hard in order to achieve great things and then support hereditary monarchy is mind-blowing hypocracy.

I don't even care if Australia has a non-Australian head of state - so long as the person in that position got there on the basis of competitive selection based on merit. Even within his own family, do we know if Charles is more suitable for the job than Edward or Anne? Personally, I think Anne would do a better job but we'll never know because it is not up for competitive tender - as it should be. And the Australian Republican Movement, who stuck me as a bunch of silvertail flunkies (not unlike David Flint), never articulated that argument for obvious reasons.

I don't respect Prince Charles because of his marital choices. I don't respect him because I will never have the chance to vote for him and he got his job solely on the basis of the right connections.

When charlie travels he pushes all things english, that is he is an ambassador for all things english and/or british. He or the queen do not do the same for Australia. My immediate forebears fought with those from the UK in two world wars. In many cases, especially in WW1, useless british generals etc had command. As a result we suffered appalling casualties. Now if/when I travel to this place where my queen lives, where charlie lives, where many of my immediate ancestors fought a common enemy I must go through the lesser gate. Our former enemies go through the friends gate now.Yet my/our queen lives there - strange that. On anyones count charlie is an adulterer and was when he was married to dianna. With his priveleges of (unearned) rank should come responsibility and accountability. He has all the priveleges (unearned) and no responsibility.Didn't he once say that he wanted to come back after his death as a woman's sanitary article? -UGH! Yes david this entire german family is absolutely, totally and completely dysfunctional. This family of privelege (unearned) look out only for themselves and their position and wealth. This independent nation of Australia does not or should not want such people over us setting their disgusting and immoral behaviour as an example for us - we have enough of our own setting an appalling example. The big reason the Republican push failed is the manner of electing or appointing the President.Of course you WELL know that dear little david - eh? Our thoroughly decent and incorruptable very honest parliamentarians wanted to do the selection.Of course we did not want that at all. It will come david and one day you will have to acknowledge HER Excellency THE PRESIDENT OF AUSTRALIA.

Regards, numbat.

I'm a middle-aged man who thinks that Australia's transition to a republic is both inevitable and desirable, but I don't live in a city. However, I agree with our most venerable monarchist that there is little to be gained for the republican movement in drawing attention to the latest antics of the heir apparent to the throne of, amongst numerous other places, Australia.

I also agree with 'DavidJS' concerning the incompatibility of the ascribed superior status of certain individuals, with egalitarian sentiments that are fundamental to Australian identity. On the other hand, I disagree with him that this sentiment is not shared by most supporters of an Australian republic.

The British monarchy is an anachronism that may still have some relevance to the United Kingdom, but Australia is no longer part of that political State.

"They even proposed that two words be deleted from the referendum question. They were, believe it or not, "president" and "republic"!"
Presumably Mr Flint is referring to the desire to keep the titles of "Governor-General" and "Commonwealth of Australia", a preference which is not arbitrary. It would make clear that the role of the G-G had not changed, and the term "Commonwealth" signifies that we as a country are working together - it is not everyone for themselves.

"The mandate which flows from that would ensure that the president and the prime minister would forever be engaged in an endless political struggle for dominance, the effect of which would militate against the good governance of the nation, resulting at times in paralysis."
Flint is mixing two systems here, if the president took on an active executive role then the ministers would be of the president's choice and there would be a better distinction between the executive and the legislative. There would be tension, like in the US, but that isn't necessarily bad. If the president was not more active then no systemic change would have occurred.

"If he were someone else, someone with whom the media elites could identify, and raised a fraction of this, or made some gesture of mourning, or said something nice about the poor, he would risk the sort of secular canonisation which the media gave, for example, to Sir William Deane when they believed he was criticising the Howard Government - which if he had, would have been unconstitutional."
Unconstitutional? Can't see anything in chapter II about that. Mr Flint seems to have a very flawed notion of how the media operates.

People who would vote on principle will not be affected by the attacks but it might weaken the views of those who would be against it due to emotional connection with the royal family; they are the people more likely to dislike Camilla. The technicalities won't matter to them, she will still be referred to and thought of as the Queen, a part of the royal family.

I agree to come extent with David JS, no one gives a stuff about Charles and Camilla as people or newly weds or whatever. Bully for then if they want to get married, who cares?

The issue is whether the person with the final sign off on our laws is someone who visits at our expense every 10 years or so and contributes nothing to the debate.

I disagree with the "he didn't work for it so he don't deserve it" silliness also. This applies to anyone who inherits anything, it's just a question of scale. Charles has, for a royal, at least attempted to get involved with current issues such as architecture, the environment, etc. They may not be exactly earth shattering pronouncements but, to be fair, he does cop a fair bit of flack whatever he does.

Let's:

a: get over Diana, she's gone, Camilla is here, deal with it. Ask any child of divorced and remarried parents, life goes on. They're adults, they can do what they want.

b: get rid of the UK monarch as our head of state.

Flint, the aust public did NOT reject the idea of a republic, they rejected the model that was proposed, which I think shows a higher level of understanding than you give people credit for. I think most people don't really care, but given the choice would pick an Australian as head of state.

Ask "do you want an australian as the head of state" as the referendum question and 80% will say yes.

Ian

David Flint once again is flogging a dead horse. One of Charlie Windsor's mob? The process of becoming a Republic and being free of colonial servitude is gathering pace. Looks like Flint has dropped a clanger similar to the one at the A.C.A. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even in the United Kingdom the removal of the archaic Monarchy is the talk of the day.

We are a free people and have grown up enough to stand on our own feet. Surely there are citizens for whom we could have genuine respect and would welcome as our chosen Head of State. There certainly is no respect for this individual and it is time we moved out of Colonial serfdom and stood up for ourselves.

Vive la Republique.

David Gothard