Dear Foxy,

Machiavelli favored a republic. His book, The Prince, described what rulers did to keep power. The actions of a successful ruler are often cunning, schemimg and unscrupulous. Machiavelli wrote other things, but "The Prince" is the most prominent of his works. He did not advocate the behaviour described in the book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

"The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy. While much less well known than The Prince, the Discourses on Livy (composed c. 1517) has been said to have paved the way of modern republicanism. It has also significantly influenced authors who have attempted to revive classical republicanism, including Hannah Arendt."

Foxy,
Are you sure that your Bryce quote is accurate?
Because the second paragraph is meaningless.

Is Mise,

The quote is available on the web.

The Queen's representative in Australia Dame Quentin
Bryce, the former Governor General has used the final
words in her last Boyer lecture of the year to offer
support for an Australian Republic. It is an extract
of her speech. You can Google it for yourself.
It's an excellent speech.

Dear David F.,

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had this to say
about Machiavelli:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli

Foxy,
Excellent it may be but what I asked was did you quote it correctly because the last paragraph is meaningless.

David Hume who also has a section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy dealt with the Is–ought problem.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

“The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine[1] is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.”

In my opinion Machiavelli described ‘what is’ and did it well. Those who are uncomfortable with him wish he had made moralistic statements about ‘ought’