The British monarchy is an anachronism, and even less relevant to most Australians than it is into the majority of Poms. As a republican ditching the monarchy is not a high priority with me, there is a cost involved with this sort of state visit nonsense, but it is relative small in the scheme of things. I have nothing against Charlie as such, I wouldn't like to see Old Charlie go the way of Louis XVI of France, and ending up headless.

I was hoping that we'd see a diversity of opinions in this
topic.

I'll repeat what I've said in previous discussions .

We're a country that doesn't like disturbances,
valuing stability. We are suspicious of demagoguery.
We have a fondness of long-standing norms and
conventions but most of us are comfortable when
these are challenged with merit and through due
process.

We've allowed a wide diversity of people into this
country but we also prize the arms-length distance from
the world that our geography allows.

Whether you're pro-Republic or pro-Monarchy I feel that
the behaviour of the state premiers in declining to meet
with the Royals is just rude. King Charles
is our current Head of State,
and you may not approve of that - but that's the present
reality and as a government official - you should be able
to perform the duties required.

A decision has been made by the government to welcome the
Royals - and as government officials - the premiers should
have to perform their jobs. The excuse that they have meetings
to attend is just not good enough. Meetings can always be
re-scheduled.

As for the costs involved of the Royal visit?

We've always paid for visiting dignitaries. And welcomed
them with dignity and pride showing them the best our
country has to offer. And King Charles is our Head of
State. The cost of the visit should not come into question.
At least - not yet. Not until we have another referendum
on the republic.

King Charles has made it quite clear (as did his mother)
that he will not block Australia becoming a republic. That
this was a decision for the Australian people to make.
He won't stand in the way.

I find it interesting that our state premiers have
declined to meet with the Royals and yet - the
Royals will be meeting with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander representatives and groups - who
have accepted their invitations.

They could have refused with good reason because
the negative affects of colonization are still having
an impact on Indigenous people every day often in drastic
ways.

These 18th century colonial attitudes set in motion events
and policies and established systems and institutions that
continue to have an impact on Indigenous people today,
despite Indigenous people's determined efforts to resist
and overcome their adversity.

Their behaviour is admirable - in accepting their invitations
to meet with the Royals compared to the behaviour of the
state premiers.

There's more at the following:

http://bbc.com/news/articles/cg563r671zpo

.

Our old colonial constitution is the legal framework for how Australia is governed. There is nothing in it about a head of state. It does not exist.

We could continue inviting the British Royal Family on the occasional tourist trip to Australia and wave flags at them if that’s how we want to spend our tax money, but we don’t really need their services as head of state.

The Prime Minister could do that for representation on the world scene if required.

.

Dear Banjo,

At present King Charles is our Head of State and as
such he should be met with respect and civility
by all our federal and state representatives.
What the future brings regarding King Charles
we shall have to wait and see.

I understand what you're saying. However, what I am
questioning is the state premiers refusing to meet with
the King during his visit here. I find their behaviour
inappropriate.