Foxy,

"What any one of us thinks of Prince Charles is
neither here nor there"

True, but posters ought to be up to defending their statements, especially when such statements are derogatory.

Dear Is Mise,

Of course. However not everyone sees things from
that perspective and as we were discussing the
monarch's role in regards to Australia -
How well Charles can fly a helicopter or what other
skills he has - including even his eco-babble, his
personal affairs and scandals - has no
bearing on his role as monarch of Australia.

Toni, if you believe that she does not interfere with the running of the commonwealth countries, I think you may be taking a little too much notice of what is said and not what is done.
If and when Australia becomes a Republic, and I hope it does not, she will not interfere, no.
But I assure you whilst we are as we are now, she is our queen and she has the right to dictate whatever terms and conditions she wishes, upon us.
Proto-col and image are her first priority, but don't let that sway you, she owns Australia, as such she can do whatever she wants.
She chooses to remain at a distance, until she see's the need for her to intervene.
C'mon, as if she would sit back and just watch and do nothing if things started going awry.
Don't forget she is the head of the armed forces.
They are not beholding to some moronic generals or whatever, they belong to HER!
The GG is her buffer, so it is seen that she is not interfering with local politics, so she puts the GG out there to cop all the flack.
If you google all these points you will find I am right.
The queen is also the queen of Australia thereby sealing our position as her servants, and therefore her ability to, through the GG, run any country she 'owns'.
Until the British monarchy and rulers decide to 'let us go', we are not as free and democratic as some would like to think.
I'm OK with that.

As a result of inheriting the joint personally from J Cook, the Queen /King has one last slice of real power. Charles can decide an issue about State rights if a citizen has a problem with Canberra.

"Section 74 did provide that the parliament could make laws to prevent appeals to the Privy Council and it did so in 1968, in matters involving federal legislation. . Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council are now only theoretically possible in Federal : State matters if the High Court grants a certificate of appeal under section 74 of the Constitution.
Section 74 – Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as the the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the Question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be please to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitations shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s pleasure. "

Thank you, Nicknamenick!

Belly,
Even if Shorten were to win the next election he has the task of generating interest in the republic issue.

I have asked my cleaning lady, my butcher, my barber, the barmaid at my pub and other sundries and no one says that people are talking about it. In fact they say it is years since they heard it mentioned.

So, like the bloke with the wheel barrow, you have the job ahead of you. You had better hope your enthusiasm is infectous. Or maybe my contacts were too engaged in the football season.