Nothing can justify hereditary succession beyond sentiment and tradition. As Thomas Paine said, the idea of hereditary rulers is as absurd as the idea of hereditary judges or hereditary mathematicians.

Some traditions pass their "use by" date, and that time has come for constitutional monarchy in Australia. As an independent nation we deserve to have a titular Head of State, democratically chosen, who is one of us, at the apex of our federal parliamentary democracy.

...Yes but Fred S, who could argue that a candidate outside the hereditary circle of Royalty would offer any advantage at all. What you suggest is a Gillard an Abbott a Howard etc., you fill in the blanks with whatever conceited leader of your choice! Australia needs more stability not less; it's why change is rejected!

Just about anyone who is Australian and outside the "hereditary circle" would be better. For example, Zelman Cowen, William Deane, the current Governor-General. All we need do is arrange for a more democratic way of selecting the Governor-General, while deleting reference to the monarchy, and retain the Governor-General as Head of State, with the same role and powers as now.

<<Nothing can justify hereditary succession beyond sentiment and tradition.>>

True, Fred, but sentiment and tradition (in moderation) are good things to have.

<<the idea of hereditary rulers is as absurd>>

Of course, but has anyone proposed that Will and Kate be ruling over us? Surely they will only be a symbol.
Moreover, their benign presence, holding that space, will act as a stop-gap, immunising us against some real ruler trying to control our lives.

<<As an independent nation we deserve to have a titular Head of State, democratically chosen, who is one of us, at the apex of our federal parliamentary democracy.>>

'Nation': If anything is out-dated, isn't the concept of "nation" first in line to go?

'Deserve': This word commonly refers either to a prize or to a punishment. As there is no advantage, I must assume that's intended as punishment (for being a naughty nation?).

Apex of 'democracy': Since our democracy is non-existent, perhaps that's why we deserve to be punished with a local stick rather than a remote feather?

As the father of a teenage daughter the idea that this society still has any "values" at all is laughable, this article is fine work if the target audience is over 40, to the "youth" it means nothing.
This isn't just a cranky generational thesis either, there is no longer any public example of virtue I can give to my child to dissuade her from taking semi nude photos of herself and posting them online, I can yell, I can punish but the words are hollow when there's no social stigma to wield against such behaviour.(and yes our young lady was a girl guide from the age of seven until last year)
I got a tweet the other day from someone in the U.S linking to an article on this very issue, the writer said words to the effect that in railing against the current, degenerate, narcissistic memes "We're pulling up a whore's underwear after she's done her business in the street and telling ourselves we're safeguarding public morals".

Jay of Melbourne, we've heard this 'good old days' stuff all before.

We heard it about the degenerate black people wanting to remove discrimination and segregation (or even slavery). Heard it from the degenerate homosexuals wanting to be left alone by the law. From the sickos wanting interracial marriage and now even the dirty gays wanting to marry!

Yours is just a cranky generational thesis; the only thing constant in life is change, some good, some bad.

There are no logical arguments which support the retention of the British monarchy as Australia 's head of state .

Like other monarchist commentators , this author talks of " Wills and Kate " as though he knows them personally and hopes that these familiar names somehow show that they are lovable characters whom Australia should take to its heart .

In fact , both belong to the most privileged family in the world . Neither has ever had , or will have ,a real job or knows what the ordinary person has to deal with . They can offer nothing of benefit to Australia .

Australia should become a republic without delay , not awaiting the demise of Wills ' grandmother . She, too , offers nothing of benefit to this country .

I disagree with julatron, taking a swipe at generational differences doesn't deal with the crux of what Jay of Melbourne was raising. Values matter and we're a country and possibly a civilization (Western) that is loosing a measure against which to judge our individual and collective actions. Yes, some change is good, some bad, but that doesn't mean that we should just sit on the sidelines and accept what ever comes. The Western Roman Empire is the most famous of those which declined as a result of its own narcissistic and self indulgent ways. Other societies that I have lived in have a much stronger sense of values, of right and wrong, and importantly internal mechanisms for maintaining adherence to them. Noting that we're weak in this regard is not a cop out but a call to pay more attention to this critical element of every society.

This is not a bad attempt but I must protest that living traditions are not just a source of values. I think values are very much overrated and it leads to superficial ethics. We all know the danger of asserting principles in ethical debate.

At first I thought the author had read Alistair MacIntyre's Whose Justice, which rationality. I would commend the last few chapters that outline the overreaching ideology of the west in our time; liberalism. This is a left over from the Enlightenment that refuses acknowledge the authority of tradition and asserts autonomous reason. It has taken us some time to find out that this is a joke. The response has been relativism and emotivism that discards truth for consensus. This is the course of Weberian anomie that the author talks about.

You could also read MacIntyre's "After Virtue" that will dissuade you from all this values grubbing.

Peter Sellick

Denis,
The point I wanted to get across is that there is no stigma surrounding such behaviour as posting "Naked Selfies" or promiscuity, there's no consequence for that sort of behaviour, I mean, we're talking about a 14 year old child here.
I think what Juliatron is misunderstanding,perhaps because I didn't explain myself is that this narcissistic youth culture is not really a social change so much as a fad or fashion, that later in life the same negative consequences will manifest as have always applied to immodest or promiscuous people.
So the way I see it we still have the long term negative consequences,promiscuous women and omega male jerks still drastically limit their future prospects but we're missing the initial stigma of being a "slut" or "cad" that would have often deterred people from taking that direction in life.
I'm not just berating the girls either, the cult of the omega jerk, the hustling, drug dealing, whoremongering sexual deviant is also corroding young men's lives. After all is said and done a man's reputation is still his biggest asset, just as a womans is, young people are missing a vital step in their development, they are not proving themselves to their elders and betters and building a good reputation from their teenage years.

Might I also add that in times past when a society's standards did slip it often resulted in a terrible reactionary backlash and fairly gruesome consequences for the transgressors. History is cyclical, the old "Mystery Cults" of the late Roman era were ruthlessly smashed, the licentiousness of Weimar era Germany was terminated in Dachau and Buchenwald,the backlash against the Swinging Sixties is now being felt in full force so the reaction against the internet "Cult Of The Idiot" will begin to be coalesce in fairly short order.

Re the "search for meaning" via the role models of Will & Kate their was an item in the weekend paper about Kate apparently now has the ideal nose shape, having replaced previous ideal or desired shapes - Nicole Kidman for instance.
Which is to say that, at least in the USA plastic surgeons are doing a good trade in nose jobs, with their clients demanding Kate shaped noses.
I suppose the same phenomenon is occurring out here in the fore-luck tugging, and curtseying colonies too.

I wonder if Denis is familar with the truth-telling book Britain's Empire by Richard Gott?

Daffy Duck, the article doesn't suggest that we look to Kate, nor William, as role models. I'm really not quite sure where you got that idea from. The article is clear, at least it appears to have been to other commentators, that is that they are symbols of a tradition that has ingrained values. Let me put it another way, when we say that Australia had a baptism by fire that was built through the valour of the ANZACs, then we raise above the rest special individuals who represent this collective more, people such as John Simpson. That it was decided John Simpson would not receive a Victoria Cross does not undermine his role as a symbol of ANZAC values. William and Kate are similarly representatives of a particular tradition, not necessarily role models in of themselves. That they appear to be positive role models is boon.

The point was that whatever value the tradition had in the past, it is now a joke. Or put in another way the emperor really has no clothes. Although many people still like to pretend that the emperor is still fully clothed.

Queen Elizabeth has of course been an exemplary example of how a Queen or King should be. But of course we know nothing about what her real life was and is like behind the castle walls. Like all of us ordinary people she would have suffered and dramatized all of the usual petty human dramas in her personal life.

Princess Anne appears to have lived a life of service to the people altogether.

In my opinion the people who are supposed to represent the tradition should also embody the very best virtues of the tradition, especially as part of the mystique of the royals is that they are somehow supposed to be in one way or another representatives of The Divine. Remember the now discredited idea of the "divine right of kings". Louis the XIV of France was called the Sun King - actually he was more like Louie the Fly.

Of course very few of the British royals have ever done anything like that, either in the now-time of the 20th and 21st centuries, or at any time in history.
Edward VII was probably a Nazi sympathizer.
Look at the present royal family, whose real lineage is German (Saxe-Coburg). Prince Philip is of greek origin.
It is just as dysfunctional as any other family. Prince Philip is a curmudgeon. Prince Charles, the possible future king was an adulterer. Then there is the circus associated with Fergie, her failed marriage, and her children.