"The last thing I want to do is cause loads of hype or problems, I just want to go in there and get my asparagus or whatever".
Prince William

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/prince_william.html

In my halcyon days I dreamt of an Australian Republic. I equated this with freedom, new ideas, a fresh start, and an identity, which we had to have.

Something, however, happened that made many of us most suspicious of the whole Republican movement. Firstly, the Republican movement's President, Malcolm Turnbull joined the Liberal Party and has aspirations to be a megalomaniac. He wants his future Republic to own all the rivers, probably take back the Aboriginal land now in progress and push the states into irrelevance under his autocratic nationalism.

Then we had the Cronulla riots.

We have a poisonously dull Prime Minister loathed by a majority of his own people. We have an equally dull opposition leader who will basically keep the economy on its current formula but promises not to go too mad with the war machine or exploitation, persecution and so on.

So who will be the future leaders after Howard. We have a choice between 2 Republican closets. We have Malcolm Turnbull (if he wins his seat), who looks more and more like Napolean every day. Then we have the Calvinistic puritan: Kevin Rudd who is more like an Oliver Cromwell type. He doesn't like the Prince William idea, as there would be "party-party-party at the GG's house". Only a killjoy would shoot the Albatross when everyone is so thirsty for some life.

Rudd, Howard nor Napoleon Turnbull promise more human rights or freedom for common people. Nor do they inspire our imagination.

At least under a Governor General: Prince William, the GG position could be restored in a time that we need intelligence more than patriotism.

We might even have time to develop our Bill or Charter of Rights.

It is crucial that we have our Charter of Rights in Australia before any misguided nationalism arises.

I'd prefer the flutter of fashion madness and glamour turning the cash tills than Cronulla style nationalism any day.

Surely Harry is preferable as he is probably less in-bred & has better hair? My choice has long been one of the Royal Corgis, however, as they are possibly less open to corruption.
However, as you bring up the Bill of Rights, with which I agree, how can one be drafted that will stand up against the depradations of the Fortune 500, who are really running the world, are they not?

The United Kingdom and New Zealand and Canada has their Bills or Charters of Rights in writing. Why can't we?

I say we should give the boy a go. After all, unless we change our Constitution he could be our actual Head of State in a decade or two. He might as well get some experience in the colonies.

Of course, in the unlikely event that he actually is appointed to the position of Governor-General, the most likely outcome would be an acceleration of our inevitable transition to a republic.

Yes, let's start a campaign for Willie for G-G! We could get Elton John to do a version of Waltzing Matilda...

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my issue is what is constitutionally appropriate!

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

I have on this published my 30-6-2007 correspondence to HRH Queen Elizabeth II about the Governor-General issue in extensive manner.

Read what Deaking stated in framing the constitution about the Governor-General position and how he, albeit unconstitutionally, became the first Australian Born Governor-General some 30 years later.

You will discover what the Framers of the Constitution intended, and that this Malcolm Turnbul seeking to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into a REPUBLIC, was uttter and sheer nonsense. He might be a Queens Counsellor (lawyer) buyt he certainly didn't know what is constitutionally permissible. And, the WATER issue too is on the blog, showing that this too is unconstitutional as intended by Howard and his cohorts, and Kevin Rudd also.

WATER rights in the hands of the Commonwealth of Australia the Framers of the Constitution warned, when they refused to hand this over, would affect every facet of life, property values, etc.

By the way, the Framers of the Constitution limited the number of Minister to "7", what about getting rid of some in making clear they are not constitutionally validly appointed and so save a lot of money in the process.

S-F,

Is William British or Australian, first? Would/Dooes he admire Churchill or Curtin? Would he risk loosing the UK to save Australia? Would have earned the job [like a decorated, military officer or esteemed judge] or be given the job because, he is line for the throne? Is being Australian G-G merely an apprentiship for being King; wherein, the latter is more important. Would William stay G-G if Charles died during his term, because Australia is more important to him the UK?

He is successor to a warring and MAFIA-like family, leading a country which dropped Australia to save itself in WWII, and, entered the Common Market over the interestes of the Commonwealth [1957?] to build its own economy, relied on us to help it with its nuclear programme, when the US would not [the UK was in the US bad books at the time over the Suez crisis].

When did a British PM last visit Australia and "call-on" our PM? Our PM seems to visiting Downing Street quite frequently.

No William should not be G-G. However,

Were Charles to abdicate being hier to British throne, his titles, become an Australian citizen; then, given his experience in diplomatic affairs and charities, he should at least be a candidate, provided he gives up talking to rocks and aspirations of coming-back as a tampon.

S-F

Should the UK have GG and elected Senate? With the former, the one equalises the distance between the Monarch in the UK and to that with other countries having Elizabeth nominal head/chief of state. With the latter, which could happen, the people in the UK would have more representation. Should the Australian PM have the power to dissolve the British Parliament?

Beyond good diplomatic relations Australia really doesn't need the UK, our demographic is ethically mixed and our measure on the Bank Bank wealth index and the UN's Human Development Index, superior to the UK.

Oliver,

Truthfully, it appears to me you are beyond help.

A Governor-General represent the British Crown. Hence if Charles was to be G-G then the moment the Queen was to vacate the throne then he could no longer remain to be a G-G as a G-G is to represent the Monarch and constitutionally requires to be a person born in the UK.
Neither can anyone naturalise to become an “Australian citizen” as constitutionally being an “Australian citizen” is having the “political” status that includes “franchise’ but exclude “nationality”.
Chinese nationals who were residing in the colonies, but had “franchise” as if they had paid the Poll tax they were allowed to vote, by Section 41 of the Constitution were entitled to use their “Australian citizenship” to vote in Federal elections but by section 44 of the Constitution were excluded from sitting in the federal parliament.
Constitutionally “Australian nationality” does not exist as Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution allowed with consent of the British Parliament the Commonwealth of Australia to naturalise “aliens” to become “Subjects of the British Crown”.
No referendum was ever held, let alone succeeded to alter this, however children are taught since kindergarten differently as to what the political ambitions of the government is. Those who retain their kindergarten mentality will never grow up and never learn.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

Thank you for some interesting comment. I was unaware of the distinctions involving "franchise". Intersting.

Else, my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek to the point out William, Charles and Elizabeth are first and foremost Britians and not Australian and that The Constitution(s), which served us well into the 1950s, is now its sunset regarding its contemporary relevancy.

By the same token, I would not like to see the American system with what is essentially an elected Monarch the a mandate. [Nixon said felt he had the same powers as Loius XIV. Guess Watergate showed overwise; But the lean of US affairs does give his comment "some" credice.]. That said, any revised Oz Constitution should have purely Australian locus, for the governors-general [or replacement title]and leglisation and all. Here, I posit someone outside of politics, who is not an alien [Australians are no longer British subjects].

Britain has a High Commissioner to represent it.

If it is will of the British to keep a Constitution Monarchy in place in the UK: So, be it. But, we, Australians, are not British. Our links to Braitain and her Queen are dotted line sociologically and economically. The legal relationship is fifty years behind the play.

Oliver,

Why not read the material on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and you may just discover that we are still British nationals, regardless what the British and Australian governments seek to make otherwise.

Keep in mind that after a 5-year legal battle against the Federal Government lawyers I succeeded on all constitutional issues I raised.

The issue is not relevant if you do not feel being British, the issue is we have a Constitution of 1900 and it is embedded in it that we are British nationals. It cannot be amended, not even by a Section 128 of the Constitution. All laws can only be enacted by the British Crown! If not it isn’t any law!

Unless there is a successful referendum to amend the constitution to give the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers to define/declare citizenship, any legislation as to Australian citizenship is null and void and without legal force.

The moment you accept for the Commonwealth of Australia to act contrary to constitutional limitations merely perhaps because it may suit you, then keep in mind that you then have no footing to complain if they act contrary to your constitutional rights as once to support tyranny/dictatorship you are a goner.

We either have a constitution or not. If we have one then it must be appropriately applied and not subject to what politicians desire!