I think it so idiotically hypocritical of those against the monarchy to speak of them (quite rightly I might add) as being "over the top" re romp'n pomp.
Yet when you watch these lefties at their ceremonies & award nights, sorting events etc etc, they don't mind over the top romp'n pomp themselves.
The only difference between Monarchists & Republicans is that the Monarchists want to protect what the republicans want to take away from them for themselves.
As I said, pretty hypocritical & for what purpose, for what outcome & for whom?
I think Monarchies could do with some reigning in on taxpayer funded opulence but give me a Monarchy any day over a Hollywood Star or Pop music Mutt or one of those extreme egoists from the sporting world & all led around by ex lawyers.

Vote for a President and you get a politician !

For more than 2500 years, a sovereign country in which its citizens effectively controlled the government was called a republic.  History records many:  Rome from 510 to 55 BC,  Venice from the 7th century to 1797,  Novgorod from 1136 to 1478, among others. In the traditional meaning of the word,  Australia is already a de facto republic, called the Commonwealth of Australia. It fits the traditional definition.

 Since 1922, when Lenin and Co. called the Soviet provinces they ruled, ‘republics’, it seems that anybody can call their country a republic, for instance, North Korea and Syria. The word ‘republic’ has lost its traditional meaning to become a title instead.

Today, any attempt by the Crown to impose its will on Australia would be emphatically rejected, as it was in 1931, when King George V unsuccessfully opposed the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General. The extent to which some Australians see themselves as compromised by having a ‘foreign head of state’ seems to be a personal psychological problem rather than one of governance.
Our problems with governance stem from the fact that we suffer under an archaic constitution, written before the dawn of a new age, that produces dysfunctional government. Defining a ‘head-of-state’ or choosing a new title for our nation does nothing to relieve that problem; it is ineffectual window-dressing.
The ANZUS treaty is a far greater threat to our independence than the flimsy threads linking us to the Commonwealth of Nations. Compared with following the Americans into disastrous wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of having a foreign ‘head-of-state’ is utterly trivial.

third try

I don't know that ' a sovereign country in which its citizens effectively controlled the government' necessarily applies to Australia

If we do away with governors, who keeps those uneducated politicians adhering to the Australian constitution?

We need to teach the Constitution in Schools so the people know the rules by which we are governed. Giving politicians free range to do as they please will undermine our democratic rights. We already have the best system of government we do not need to change. We just need better representatives in Government.

Josephus - If we do away with governors, who keeps those uneducated politicians adhering to the Australian constitution?

and your examples of occasions when any governor has done ANYTHING other than squander prodigious sums of taxpayer money are ??

I'm quite ambivalent re monarchy vs republic. There are significant issues with our present rabble & no shortage of unanswered questions re any of the republican models I've read about. Surely what needs to be done in either case is to rid the country of all the totally non-productive bloodsucking parasites for a start, beginning with governors & the zillions of has-beens. Once upon a time, Australia was known for its inventiveness, surely we can unearth a bit of that and devise something better than the tired old schemes that have failed dismally elsewhere.