//If it ever came to a showdown between Parliament and the Queen, I have no doubt that the Armed Forces would keep their oath.//

Funny, it didn't work out that way during the Civil War. Anyway...

That's a charmingly romantic and naive view of what people are really like, Is Mise, but I've met enough soldiers to know that most of them aren't in it for Queen & country, they do it because it's a paying job. Oaths of loyalty don't put food on the table or a roof over one's head.

The armed forces might swear allegiance to the Queen, but it's the Parliament that pay them: the Queen can't afford to pay all the British armed forces out of her own pocket and the monarch has been prohibited from levying taxes since Magna Carta. (S)he who pays the piper calls the tune, Is Mise. If we did have a repeat of the Civil War, I think you'd discover fairly quickly how mercenary the average soldier is, and how severely outnumbered by neo-Roundheads your noble, unswervingly loyal Cavaliers would be.

The armed forces would split in 2 , Royalist v. Republican.
"The Armed Forces of Great Britain, all 147,000 of them" .
Bloomberg Billionaires Index put the Queen's cash at A$505 million (about £275 million).
UK infantry are paid A$42000. Each would be paid A$3500. 50% of the military could be paid for 2 months.

Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken of the family Heineken beer business with £11.1bn year. A$20bn. 50% of military would be paid
$140,000 , or 3.3 years ( funds shipped in from Zurich). Heineken is German and would be excellent .

Belly,

" you have had many answers to your question you just do not want to see them"

But not one shewing a tangible benefit to the Australian people.

Just tell me how one ordinary Australian will be better off under a republic?

Also, where did I insult you?

Are you peeved that I've seen through your game of playing the uneducated simple soul?

Toni,

I've also known, and know, a lot of soldiers and they do not/didn't lay their lives on the line for mere money.

Did the tommies or diggers do it for George or Elizabeth? When has an OLO post about an everyday political issue said " Elizabeth and I want.." , "The Queen says,,"?

//I've also known, and know, a lot of soldiers and they do not/didn't lay their lives on the line for mere money.//

Well there you go - if mere money isn't enough to motivate them, a pat on the back, cup of tea and a 'well done, old chap' certainly aren't going to be sufficient. History teaches us that when armies stop getting paid, they start deserting en masse.

How did the thought the Queen owns our country get a run here, too how did the thought she has control over our parliament get seen here.
So totally wrong/silly just not true?
And those who put those views ask me to answer questions?
Victoria may have been the last Queen/King to have real power.
Others had more than todays Royals, I am reminded of my dads home town Bowral, in the 1950s you had to tip your hat to the wealthy squatter families, they third generation Australian mumbled about home, that being England.
Are they here now? you will not understand it Ise Mise but there, and in every word you and ALTRAV posted here are my reasons this country will benefit from becoming a republic.
Time to get up off our knees