Good point on the French revolution, David. The reason a third of Australia does not speak French like a third of Canada is that the revolution amounted to a very destructive distraction at a critical point in history. Probably all the better for us, though.

I think we should fix this republican problem by inviting the rightful King of England, Mr Michael Hastings of Jerilderee, to reform our own Monarchy. What better symbol of Australian life than a man who came as a migrant, of modest circumstances, and found his own place in the sun. This would maintain the position of the institution of the crown, involve no variation in powers, but also make one of our own as head of state. He could maintain his ordinary life in Jerilderee, continue the traditions of appointing Governors General and all the conventions that come with it.

No one could say he was not the legitimate ruler, and no one could say he was not a true Australian head of state. And we can all get back to work on the real problems that need to be addressed. Who, indeed, could not enjoy the delicious irony of it all?

So let me get this right Perseus, you want to CHOOSE your Head of State..?
Where I come from, that's called something else, beginning with 'R'

Well done David you have coninced me that we should not have the French model for a republic.

What we need is the American model.

David Flint (Online Opinion. 29th November) continues preaching in support of the redundant Monarchy. Like King Canute who was unable to stop the tide. One notes Flint gives his qualifications as ‘former Chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority.’ Why ‘former?’
His selective review of History is designed to cover only those efforts which have resulted in, what Flint would call “Failures.’ It would be just as easy to select items which show that various Republics have been very successful and have been able to make much progress having thrown off the Colonial yoke.
It is clear that Flint is desperately flogging a dead horse and finds problems in locating anything that really supports the monarchy. Would he support the possibility that Charlie Windsor is next in line to be our Head of State? Most Australians find Charlie a laughing stock by his actions and pronouncements, and quite unfit for the office. Yet we, at present, have no option but to take what we are given and accept one who has no qualifications for the position other than accident of birth.
Australians have for a long time labored under the Colonial yoke and now seek to stand up and be counted as a Free and Independent Republic with a Head of State of our own choosing. A majority of former Colonies have taken the step and become Republics and more are following. Australia will surely follow this trend in the interests of freedom and standing on our own feet. The English Government has been taking steps along this path for years. The decision during the war to abandon Australia to the Japanese, the removal of our rights as ‘British’ Citizens, the denial of UK Pensions to British citizens who migrate to Australia. The list goes on and on and even Prince Charles (senior) said we were bloody fools to have rejected the last referendum.
Flint and his ‘dead horse’ monarchy will soon be history and King Canute Flint will not hold back our progress.

David Gothard 113 Arthur St, Fairfield. Vic 3078 039481047

A republic would do absolutely nothing positive for Australia. Pro-republicans merely want to replace something they cannot control with something they think they might be able to control.

Flint said: "Poverty was worsening, the ghettos were becoming even more alienated and the right-wing, anti-immigration political party the Front National was gaining momentum". Sure. Sounds like a reason for people to be disaffected... but not for rejecting the concept of a Republic. France is right, I think, to be proud of its revolution. It showed there was no 'divine right of kings', and fighting for Liberty, Fraternity and Equality are are better than fighting for the glory of the King.

I fail to see that Australia going down the Republic path would lead to the fire and brimstone future that Flint seems to imagine. Many countries have republics, many have monarchies, but there seems to be little difference in their chances of social/poliical sucess.

Professor, to sheet the blame for the current unrest in France on the fact they are a republic, is about as sensible as blaming the UK "race riots" of the seventies and eighties on the fact that Britain is a monarchy.

Carrying your logic through, I commend to you Kim Jong Il's kindly rule - when did you last hear of North Korean cities ablaze with burning cars?

Do you honestly think....

... no, that would be too much to ask.

Oh David, still at it I see. Oz would be fine with a President and she would do as well as our present pack of dysfunctional royals.
Dear David the present Queen E2 of England, E1 every where else only pushes Britain she is their queen she has nought to do with Oz as I understand it. Her twiity son travels for and promotes Britain only not any other Commonwealth country - only England.
The country that the Queen is head of will not allow us Commonwealth nations the same entry to Britain as it does to its former enemies.
Kingdoms in the past generated civil wars and or tyranical rulers.
Viva the Republic of Oz.
David please go back to sleep or get a job. numbat

correct me if im wrong, but i dont remmember the queen doing very much around the time of the race riots in birmingham. if riots are going to be your terms of reference for a discussion of the merits of a monarchy, which pericles has allready pointed out as deeply flawed. could it be because she is irrelevant (in a practical sense) in her own country?

well flinty, if there is one thing i know, its that im younger than you, it wont be too long before the generations with a tangible memory of the monarchy in this country will be dirt in the ground.

I am not, by nature, a Monarchist but consistently vote that way out of a very deep and well justified distrust of the people who favour a republic. So even if the proposal had merit on the face of it, there is absolutely zero room for doubt that the eventual outcome would be a complete stuff up. The variance between the high minded rhetoric and the squalid reality is so great that these people can never be trusted with any sort of reform. Any movement that can combine the likes of Turnbull and Beattie at the one table would have to be suss.

A pretty little critque of what's happening in France, but so what? You've not drawn one parallel between their country and ours

David Flint has glossed over the major issue i.e. that of a politically correct poorly planned immigration programme.We a certain extent we have done the same.It is simmering below the surface here and will explode here if we don't take heed.

As I've stated before,had the French invited the Chinese in as immigrants,they would be now complaining about the the Chinese controlling all their businesses.

Neither the US or the UK are shining examples of racial and religious harmony.Holland and many other Eurpoean countries have similar problems.The French were just too nice and naive.The chasm between the North African and French cultures was just too great.They gave them heaps of social security but it just wasn't enough.

It had nothing to do with industrial relations,the Chinese make a lie of this statement in every country that they settle.

If people really want work in western cultures,they will find it,but it is much easier to take social security and use the time to get involved in criminal activity.

We just cannot take people from war torn poverty and depravity without education and expect them to intergrate.

Let's dispense with all the excuses and look at the hard core reality.

Laurie, you said that the 1789 revolution in France "showed there was no 'divine right of kings'", but that had already been clearly shown almost a century earlier across the Channel. The French just hadn't been paying attention during the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688.

I quite agree that Flinty's argument is a little over the top. I don't think a republic would lead to violence in the streets, just to increased power for the members of Australia's elites that would manage to get themselves elected.

Yes, things have changed between Australia and the UK since the 1930s, but we should be putting more effort into building better ties rather than cutting the ones that still exist. We share our monarchy our institutions, our basic values, our culture not only with the UK, but with New Zealand and Canada: these are countries that we should work more closely with, not pushing away.

Thank you Mr Flint. You have presented the best argument I have seen for quite some time on the merits of an independent republic with an appointed President - NOT popularly elected. Which is basically what we have now. Remove a redundant, foreign monarch. Rename G-G to 'President'. Get on with the things that really matter.

The sooner all the monarchists pass away or lose their vitality, the better we can move towards properly independent nationhood operating essentially the same political and governance system we have today.

Its the only way a republic can work in Australia. So forget the French, American, Iraqi, Russian or any other model. Recognise that what we have today works perfectly well, and a few small tweaks will enable us to modernise to true independence without losing any effectiveness. So thanks again Mr Flint.

David your analysis of the danger of an Australian Republic is absolutely correct and I commend you on your analysis.The very thought that some working class yob that dont talk proper being the President of Australia fills me with horror.As you would know the position requires ability's that can only come from Royal in-breeding stock, that has been hundreds of years in the making.The only person vaguely qualified for the job in Australia is sadly now passed on, Joe Bjelke Peterson.

Joe having dined with the Monarch had the necessary training in cermony and decorum to eat cucumber sandwiches correctly and not to slurp his soup.I know he suffered some what from incontinence in his later years but feel he wouldn't have farted in front of guests. an absolute must if one is to entertain oveseas dignitary's,as head of state.

Can you imagine the scene of one of our more robust leaders in the Government,after a gutsful of cucumber sanwiches and some expesive plonk perish the thought.

Have to disagree with you there PhilB. Ray Bloody Martin for Prez! I think channel 9's done with him.

I don't give a damn, who is head of state, its totally irelivant to REAL AUSTRALIANS.
My concern is that, if we change one word of the constitution, we will have high court actions for for 5 years & a huge windfall for the legal profession.
If we change 100 words we may find the high court ruling that black is now white, & we have to drive backwards, in the middle of the road. We do not have sensible justice, we have the law, manipulated by the profession for its own ends.
I can not understand how we can have lawyers, who have spent their lives, touting for the business of criminals, appointed to judge these criminals, who have been their clients & associats for so long.
We will not have justice until we elect our judges, & that for limited terms.
As you may notice, I don't trust them, & don,t want to give them another chance to change the LAW to the detrement of the many.