There are many factors contributing to Australia’s childish obsession with ‘celebrities’.

One factor is the profound laziness of the media, which will look for the easiest way to ‘cover’ a story. Another is the prevailing anti-intellectual mood of the country.

I would rather focus though on what the republican movement can do about it.

The Keating-inspired proposals, and the ARM which it spawned, saw a republic in simplistic terms. For 20 years the campaign has focused on the identity of the head of state as the only issue. There has been no attention given to the role and powers of the position.

The ARM has therefore set itself up to be defeated by celebrity appeal. If the personal identity and perceived qualities of the head of state are the only issue, today’s marketing machines can easily respond with the shallow circus we’ve just seen with the royal tour. Those who see a republic as a matter of identity and independence are taking a superficial approach which cannot compete with the ultimate superficiality of royalty.

By contrast, the Advancing Democracy model for a republic focuses on the role and powers of a head of state. One third of the sections in our Constitution confer power on the monarchy. If you cannot say what should be done with each one of those powers, then you do not have a proposal to put before the people. The ARM currently has no proposal which meets this criteria. The Advancing Democracy model does.

Republicans need to think more deeply about the role of a head of state. If you simply allocate the current role of the Governor-General to a new president, then you are perpetuating monarchy, because that role reflects the ancient role of the monarchy. The Advancing Democracy model recognises that all royal powers are limitations on democracy. It’s amazing that less than 40 years after the Whitlam dismissal so few people recognise that monarchy is in fact the most de-stabilising force in our Constitution.

Anyone interested in approaching the issue as one of substance should see www.advancingdemocracy.info.

Possibly . The amount of attention given to the latest promotional visit by the Windsor family by commercial media is excessive to the point where it represents a failure to perform the media's proper function to inform the public .
They gleefully trumpet that the visit shows that republicanism is dead . It certainly remains alive . What the media celebrates is the temporary continuance of an Australian subservience to an obsolete relic of colonialism .

During the 1999 referendum , right wing commentators objected to a parliamentary appointed head of state because they said it was undemocratic , as the head of state must be elected . No commentator noted that neither the British monarch , nor her Governor General is elected , or even chosen by Parliament .

Apart from anything else , the public exhibiting of " Prince George " is child abuse and there is no hope that this child , though he will enjoy the financial benefits of his privileged birth , will ever have a decent childhood or adolescence .

‘morning Raffaele,

Let me see if I’ve got this right. So Australian’s have been duped into thinking that the Royal Couple connected with them, not because they were Royals but because they were celebrities?

Naturally this narrative leads us to the conclusion that Australians should now vote for a Republic so that we can grant authority to someone else to appoint another “celebrity” to a presidency on our behalf?

Have I got this right?

I would guess that at least 95% of the people gushing over the visit are womens day or TY maginze readers. Famous for being famous is what these Sheep want and are fed by the media.

Is the cult of celebrity holding back an Australian republic?
Probably, along with the parliament's desire to pick one with a two thirds majority; the very question that took this issue off the table last time!
There will be an Australian republic one day, and that day will come so much closer, when Parliament pulls its head in and starts the process with a plebiscite, that asks just one question!
Should our head of state be an Australian? Just that, nothing more!
Once we've dealt with that issue, the next question at a referendum, should be, does the parliament get to make that choice, or should we the people elect our head of state? Either either, nothing more!
Now, one can see through the quite apparent obfuscation on both sides of the Isle, who as per usual, seek to corrupt the electoral process, by massaging it or manipulating it, via the preference process, and or, secret back door preference deals?
Deals done in the dead of night, that could see an electorate represented by a candidate, with as little as 15% of the primary vote, or put another way, 85% of the electorate didn't want!?
I don't know why we are still connected to the throne, given any conflict of commercial or trade interest, the throne will act exclusively for England and against us!
England chose the ECU over the Commonwealth, and almost killed many rural communities, almost completely dependent on local dairy co-ops, and trade with England, for their very survival.
We who sacrificed so much for England through two world wars, and not just on the battlefield, now are treated as aliens, with less rights than former wartime enemies, inside England!
I just don't see what all the royal fuss was about, which after costing us millions, simply allowed a presentable young couple, far less extraordinary than many, to tour here, at our expensive.
Sure they were very nice and charming, but hey, so is Kyle Manouge!
Rhrosty.

The author has described the issue very clearly. The question of what our constitutional arrangements should be to carry us forward from this point has been overwhelmed by this cult of celebrity.

However, we can do nothing about eliminating this phenomenon. We just have to live with it. What we have to do is deal with the simplistic representation of the matter as Republic v Monarchy.

The issue is to work out constitutional arrangements over which we - the Australian People - have control. At the moment we are beholden to whatever the UK wants to do with the Monarch. I think there are reasonably simple arrangements we could establish that would avoid most of the problems identified by people who have thought about this issue.

However first we have to realise what we seek to do. That is take control of our constitutional arrangements.