Alan, a lovely and thoughtfully argued piece. Unfortunately like so much of Australian politics, rational discussion, thoughtful application of researched positions etc just doesn't happen.

My own thoughts are to retain our current system with a GG, even keep the title. Don't even think about doing anything with the powers, just change how the GG is appointed. The GG is effectively appointed by the federal government of the day. It just gets rubber stamped by head of another country. Events over the last 50+ years shows that the GG is our head of state, not representative of the foreign monarch. Look how they intervened and responded when our GG's have had to intervene (rightly or wrongly, I'm not discussing here) with the government of the day. We have an independant head of state in the GG.

All I see that is needed is to change how the GG is appointed. I wouldn't bother with a name change. That great font of democracy, USA, couldn't come up with a better title for their state heads (govenor) so why should we change?

As for appointment, why not a special sitting of parliament, all of them, state, federal, lower and upper houses together with say a 60% or 70% result required? Removal?, Well the same procedure

Again, just too logical for our politicians and of course no way for a party to game the system for their benefit.

DKit

I can agree with your arguments but Prince Hendrik's father is French being Count Henri de Laborde de Monpezat he is blend of croissant and Danish pastry.

Unfortunately, Alan your most interesting article with its irrefutable slam-dunk logic only falls down at the last…

At moments of, well… moment, Australians have affectionately become used to being able to sing Advance Australia Fair to the tune of the theme from 'Gilligan's Island' and no matter how you parse it, There Is a Lovely Land doesn't work.

While I recognize that the article is intended to be humourous, it does raise some interesting points.

"All Europeans I have spoken with are surprised to hear Australia is a monarchy still."

Yes, I found the same when I have worked there. The average Frenchman hasn't the slightest clue as to the constitutional structures that exist in other countries, let alone one as remote as Australia. A trait they share with many, including the United States.

"Surprise turns to shock and dismay when it is revealed that Australia's royals are in fact not Australian, but a German family living in England."

That's stretching our credulity more than a little, Mr Austin.

"Shock and dismay" tend to be reserved for their reaction to important issues, such as being knocked out at the Group stage of Euro 2008, or Carla Bruni resuming her singing career.

We should all know by now that the rest of the world has little interest in Australia, or whether we happen to prefer the Saxe-Coburg Gotha family to, say, Bert Newton as our Head of State. It is however a favourite conceit of ours that we are, despite the mass of evidence to the contrary, vitally important in the eyes of the rest of the world.

We can also be fairly certain that the House of Windsor itself would be pretty glad if we stopped whingeing, and simply got on with the task of becoming a republic, instead of conducting endless pseudo-debates in which facts are submerged in an orgy of pointless emotion. There is little difference in genuine impact, when you think about it, between the mindless "Ozzy-ozzy-ozzy" on the one hand, and the equally mindless loyalty to a global anachronism.

Let's face it, no other country gives, or will give, a flying fig whether we are obeisant to London. Or even, as Mr Austin puckishly suggests, Copenhagen. It is up to us to determine whether we feel capable to stand on our own two feet, or whether we prefer to be guided by the views of Alan Jones and David Flint.

From the presentation on OLO's home page I thought this article was to be about our future Queen Gina or "Gina-the-Miserly" as she would come to be known.

The article sets out a compelling case for the next Queen of Tasmania and, by extension, New Zealand, but not necessarily for Australia, the wide, brown land.

Denmark has considerable experience supplying monarchs to cold, high latitude islands such as the Faroes and Greenland, but little in the way of extending this to the mid-latitudes and tropics.

I have in mind a reorganisation of Australasia, with NZ and Tasmania uniting their three cold, green islands under the Danish Crown and the larger island, complete with its string of coastal capital cities from Adelaide anti-clockwise to Perth, being reconstituted as a republic.

Of course, that leaves the bits in the middle, which are essentially only mining leases. They could become a separate nation called Middle Australia, ruled by a consortium of mining multinationals. This is pretty much in line with current practice, in any case. The miners of Middle Australia can have as their capital Canberra - after all, they bought it a couple of years back for a song in order to stop the debate about MRRT. Middle Australia would be completely depopulated, apart from transient FIFO workers who commute from wherever on the planet the ruling magnates choose to hire their serfs.

So, three nations:
New TasZealand - the cold green bits.
Middle Australia - the dusty mineralised bits.
Coastralia - a kind of permanent holiday resort for 22 million unemployed Aussies.

Isn't it interesting, some expatriate, Alan in this case wants to lecture us about sovereignty.

This is a good joke coming from someone, living in a country which has effectively given its sovereignty to the EU. Even worse the EU answer to the UN. How much sovereignty France has left is all in their language. Deep down they must know that, they are so protective of this last vestige of nationhood.

In 1976 I sailed into the Island of Gizo, capital of a Solomon Islands province, 6 years after self government, I was impressed to see, in very faded paint, "British Solomon Islands Protectorate still painted on the wall of the government warehouse. This to me showed remarkable maturity for these people, to have not rushed out with a can of paint to sever their history.

I find it interesting that Oz can show this maturity. Alan would have us standing on a mountain top, beating our chest gorilla like, proclaiming our newly found manhood. Isn't it great we are mature & confident enough, to not need such childish displays?

Perhaps it is we who should be leading those French into the maturity which appears to have passed them by.

I like JohnBennet's idea best.

Thank you for the feedback.

Okay. I concede defeat. This plan for the future monarchy in its present form is unworkable. And remains so as long as the Danish national anthem cannot be sung to Gilligan’s island. I accept this.

But the French paternity of Prince Frederik is not necessarily an obstacle, Vioetbou. It remains true Prince Chris is 50% Aussie, and that Queen Kylie will be 75% Aussie and so on.

What this actually means is that when the French see the error of their republican ways and decide again to embrace the monarchy they will be able to claim our royal family as rightfully theirs also.

Queen Kylie of Denmark, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Australia will become Queen of France. And then King Jayden, and so on.

I ask no payment for my services in envisioning this. Merely royal recognition in due course, as history unfolds. I note the Duchy d’Uzès is currently vacant.

With an annual allowance for Pastis and fois gras, of course.

John Bennetts wrote "Denmark has considerable experience supplying monarchs to cold, high latitude islands such as the Faroes and Greenland, but little in the way of extending this to the mid-latitudes and tropics." From the 16th century until 1917 the Danes were very commercially active in the West Indies having sold their Virgin Islands to thr United States in that year.

A more sensible discussion of the issue from Alan than most we have had on this topic.

What we really need, in my view, is a back to basics discussion about the design of the whole governmental system. For various reasons, the "debate" has been limited to a discussion of whether to replace the Governor General (proxy for The Queen) with an elected President. But the issue is much more important than that.

The essence lies in a discussion about the system of checks and balances and separation of powers. If we were designing the system today, from scratch, I think we might consider the following:

1. An active, powerful elected president as head of the Administration (as in the US).
2. A House Of Representatives, as in the US and Australia.
3. A Taxpayers House (rather than the Senate) that acts as a house of review, and house of accountability for the Executive and the Reps, ensuring proper cost/benefit analysis, accountability, avoidance of replication and other waste.
4. A role for the Judiciary, much as now.
5. An acknowledged role for The Press to hold government to account. This will require freeing up free speech rather than curtailing it.

Other questions arise. Do we really need three layers of government - Local, State and Federal? Can we reduce red tape/green tape by simplifying it all?

Lets do away for ever our connections with the archaic Royal family of England, or any other Royal family that the writer would like to see installed here.
When a photo of John Howard deeply bowing to another person, The Queen, who after all is no different to any other female, quite frankly made me feel like chucking for the rest of the year.
Imelda Marcus was a dictator's wife with millions of shoes under her bed, I sometimes wonder how many millions of costumes, hats and dresses the Queen has on her bed, one is as bad as the other whether if be Queen or Dictator's wife.
Lets watch all the Royals of Europe waddle off to church and pray to a God who absolutely loves their riches, when supposedly preferres the company of prostitutes and poor to enter his wonderful kingdom in the sky.
Let the Royals of Europe don all their war medals, but really have never ever been face to face with any one in combat, always a long way back being well looked after.
Dane Edna would be my choice for King and Queen of Australia, not far off aristocratic persons purely on the grounds of a right sperm and egg uniting to keep their wealthy families living the life of luxury which they have all become accustomed to.

Good piece, Alan. One error as an FT letter writer also observes today that the Queen could not be more British. The royals are not a German family as you, and many others, frequently state, says the writer. George 1 of Hanover was the grandson of Princess Elizabeth Stuart, granddaughter of Henry Vll of England, also a direct descendant, through 7 generations of Robert ll of Scotland, founder of the Stewart (later Stuart), line. They still reign over a German parade. Add 100% proof Scots blood from the late Queen Mother and the Britishness of the royals appears established. A dash of German and Greek adds diversity to the later royals