The author has touched upon many of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' that may appear to surround this happy circumstance, but hasn't mentioned the 'whereas'.

Whereas. The word with which the Australian Constitution commences.

Whereas, the word with which the Statute of Westminster 1931 also commences, introduces perhaps the most significant aspect of this issue. The second paragraph of its preamble says:

"AND WHEREAS it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall herafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:"

Recently, some commemorative plaques were emplaced in the church of St Clements Danes in London. They commemorated the service of pilots in Royal Australian Air Force squadrons that had participated in the Battle of Britain in 1940, 'Britain's darkest hour'. Such memorials had been omitted years before when many other plaques commemorating the service of pilots from elsewhere in the British Commonwealth had been dedicated.

Now the thing is, that of those surviving Australian pilots who attended the recent service at St Clements Danes, upon arrival in the UK they would not have been able to go straight through Customs like any UK or EU resident. They would have had to wait in line amongst the aliens.

In recognition of what has now come to be the situation with regard to entry of not just any British Commonwealth citizens into Britain, but the very surviving ones who had helped defend Britain in her darkest hour, why should the Australian Parliament give the slightest consideration to assenting to any change whatever in the law in Britain in this respect?

Kampmark: "The Act of Settlement does seem like a remarkable anachronism in a country with many faiths and ethnic groups", and "Retaining a Protestant monarch on the throne seems like an anachronism in a country with many faiths and ethnic groups".

Hilarious! The barbaric and in-bred system of feudalism discriminates against more than 99% of people all because of some pomposities and other delusions entertained by a snobbish and (overwhelmingly) stupid clique of degenerate people-haters.

But for Kampmark, the problem is how to spin Monarchy into a concept somehow more acceptably "tolerant, liberalist", etc., by ticking boxes about being more open to other religious clubs and their symbols! As if those same degenerates ever had serious religious credentials anyway, ever since a mass murdering king created their odd sect.

Easy to see how Kampmark got his scholarships and contracts though; hope he wears protective kneepads and lip balm during his "hard work".

There's nothing wrong with having a Protestant Monarch if it's under the umbrella of cultural enrichment and no one is disadvantaged as a result. After all, a Protestant Monarch is no more or less accurate than a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Catholic Monarch. Each and every religion is relative to eachother because they are founded on mythology.

My own feeling is that the Monarchy should declare itself to be secular and atheist. That way it is not towing the line to any particular piece of religious hear-say. But I'm not going to make a big fuss over the issue.

Binoy Kampmark is merely being bigoted and intolerant by saying that an indiginous culture should dismantle itself just to keep some loud minorities with a 'chip-on-their shoulder' happy.

No, there IS a problem having a Protestant monarch. In fact there are many problems having any kind of monarch (except arguably Moomba King - even then, the title could change to something less feudal).

Parasites all. Amazing that anyone could condone such universally offensive anachronism.

If a benign monarch is an offensive anachronism then the clerical classes - Rabbis, Popes, and Sheiks - are an offensive anachronism x 100. Why we put up with custodians of a jealous and patriachal Bronze Age diety defies all common sense. Especially when they wield far greater power over society than any modern day Western king or queen.

The real parasites are the self appointed rulers of the Temple Mount, Vatican, and Meccan circus.

What "benign monarch"? What planet are you on? And when do these clerics you so despise "appoint themselves" (as distinct from monarchs' inherited status and role)?

With bizarre interpretations like those of your previous post, you appear as either a sycophantic social climber and feudal butt-kisser, or just seriously confused.