A republic would not charge the fact that Governments no longer represent citizens, but treat them as subjects, who provide a reservoir of funding to perpetuate their own authority over those subjects. People used to be the subjects of monarchs; now they are the subjects of career politicians - whom they actually choose! We ceased to be British subjects in 1949 and became the subjects of self-serving career politicians.

That's what needs changing; not getting rid of a harmless monarchy that has no say in our affairs at all, and costs us nothing.

I'm at a loss to understand why this bloke thinks that it is nonsensical for a higher level of government to be structured differently or of a different form to a lower level.

Indeed there are plenty of successful working examples of such layered inhomogeneity throughout the world. Take the European Union for example. At the top level the Union is a de facto sovereign state on the international stage (ie: what most consider to be an independent/sovereign country) of a unique and complicated governmental form, while its the member polities, which were originally sovereign countries, are now de facto states (states in the sense of Australian or American states)*.

But Union's states are a disparate collection of forms of governments: we have monarchies (eg. Netherlands), unitary republics (eg. France), federated republics (eg: Germany), etc. Basically the only restriction to membership to the Union, in terms of acceptable forms of governemnts, is that the entity is some sort of democracy.

And if you want a real quirky example then roll back to 2007 and consider Sark. Sark was at that time the last fiefdom of Europe and contemporaneously the UK was still part of the EU. So then you have:
Sark at the lowest level, which was a royal fief, (fief: 1st form of government)
which is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, (bailiwick: 2nd form)
which is, by some peculiar way that I don't know much about, overseen/controlled by the UK (representative democratic constitutional monarchy of a united kingdom: 3rd form)
which was a member of the EU (a unique and complicated modern form of government: 4th form)

[*: Indeed if its name were changed to the "United States of Europe" then it would better reflect the current reality of the situation.]

The real factor that is never mentioned is the general deep distrust among the general public of the whole gaggle of politicians, and the great comfort that they derive from the fact that that Her Majesty and her representatives are standing by, ready to sack and ready to disallow. How fortunate we are that our constitution can only be amended by the people, and not by the politicians. I can remember the time not long ago when politicians were compared to used car salesmen, and the salesmen had to complain at the invidious comparison. Perhaps the best approach could be to change the title of the GG to "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief"

I have a solution to the republican debate that should please both sides.
Why not just nominate a local Royal Family and keep everything else in place?

We can pick a family at random (ideally an immigrant one like the pre-Windsor Saxe-Coburg Gothas), build them some castles, put their heads on our coins, write endless articles about them and discuss any scandals.

All they need to do in return is pose for the occasional photo, cut ribbons and open each new session of Parliament.

We would thus have an Australian Head of State as well as all the protections and soothing nostalgia of being ruled by our betters.

rache: I once had that same basic idea many years ago, but with a slight difference. We should chose three random orphan infants and regard them to be siblings (not an existing family like you suggest). Then the public could drew close to them as they watch them grow up and become our future Royal family. It's my opinion that the whole point of having Royals is so that the general public can be voyeurs/big brother watchers.

I never understood this years ago and was very much a republican but then I watched the marriage of our Mary to Prince Frederick of Denmark in 2004. I didn't plan on watching it, it was just of the telly, and I was captivated by it- and that's when it struck me that exactly what what the value having a of a royal family is. It's a personal/human face of the government that the general public can relate to at a human level- by watching all the ups and downs of their lives. It was quite the epiphany! For example, all those magazines with pictures of Royals and the BS stories about them at the checkout that I never understood why people buy, made sense (I've never bought one- but I now understand why people buy them). Without Royals a society has to invent something to replace this, such as an over-the-top celebrity culture.

thinkabit

It took you a while then?

And that is exactly the point to Donald Trump.

Who wants an insipid Mummy’s Boy like Morrison or Albanese in charge of the nut house Australia has become?

Dan