Andreas Berg',
The Queen took an oath to serve the people of the Commonwealth. When she took the oath she was barefooted and clothed in a servants gown as a sign of subjection to God and the service of the people. It is the State that has given her the role of Office as Queen as guardian of the Constitution and approving of laws imposed on her people by the Government under the constitution.

The idea in not as you seem to imply being some superior Dictator over the people, but one whom the Constitution accepts as representing all the people before the Law – “The Crown”.

Hasbeen,

Thanks for caring but I'm not unhappy.

However, having no sense of humor plus a deep-seated hatred of all things Gillard must be a burden.

Sorry to our threads Author.
I did not address your question first post.
You have done it for me, in every word.
We would have been a Republic, if politicians had not split the vote.
We will be.
And Philos view will, as sure as the sun sets,become a minority one.
I ask posters to note.
Elderly males are mostly fixed in the Royalty is good lists.
I am proudly Australian, and some who came from other country's too want the right to be free of institutionalized snobbery.

Dear Andreas,

The Queen is in her eighties and nearing the
end of her reign. Any hope of change will
possibly come with her grandson Prince William.
If and when he comes to the British throne.
I feel that change is a future inevitability.
As they say the only constant in life is change.

We've already seen quite a few changes in
the monarchy over the years. Being able to marry
a divorcee is one recent example that comes to mind.
I'm sure that you can think of many more.

In the past a king was forced to abdicate. Another
change
was of course the state funderal of a denounced
Princess (Diana) - in which the Queen was forced to go
against her wishes by
public opinion. As well as being force
to fly the flag at half mast
over Buckingham Palace as a sign of respect.
Change sometimes is forced
onto reluctant monarchs by their subjects.

Belly sounds just like the typical Republican Irish anti British former Catholic. There is actual angry snobbery in his own view of the Crown.

"Fundamental principle of democracy is equality of all people in society."

Correct. In mathematical notation:

A = B = C = ... = X = Y = Z = 0

"Fundamental principle of monarchy is superiority of monarch and his/her family over all other people in society."

In other words,

M > A ; M > B ; ... therefore M > 0

"Are democracy and monarchy compatible in principle?"

Obviously not: M cannot be both 0 and greater than 0.

"Can Australia claim to be a democratic society while having a monarch as a head of state?"

Firstly yes - because anyone can claim anything, even if it's false. Still, this can be technically true, provided that the head-of-state is not superior, and equals zero like the rest of us. In other words, it is possible to have a monarch without a monarchy.

At the bottom line it doesn't matter: current society is constructed to make us 0's. So long as others have power to dictate to us how we live, it makes no difference whether those others are 51% of the population or a single monarch. Between those options, I prefer the later as the lesser evil.