Foxy,
Don’t want to discuss ths Constitutional complications?
You can’t get away from the fact that ElizabethII is part of our Parliament, dodge and duck as much as you like.
What about those who swear allegiance whilst pushing for a republic, are they not perjurers and liars?

Ideological nihilist denialism.

Is Mise,

OK - I can see that you're not going to let this go.
Things have changed over time. Today we have -

an Oath of Office that Members of Parliament take.
There's an Oath of Allegiance by members of the armed forces.
Then there is a Pledge of Commitment that Australian citizens
take.

In 1994 the Keating government replaced the Oath of
Allegiance with a Pledge of Commitment to Australia for its
citizens and removed the reference to the crown.

Looking at things logically we need to do better than in
perpetuating tired platitudes.

When any Australian is required to pledge allegiance to the
Queen they are implicitly accepting that there is a higher
authority than the Australian people and that this authority
is held by the British royal family. This just does not ring
true for a country that commonly addresses its Prime Ministers
by their first names.

If you agree that the primary allegiance of any Australian
should be to Australia and its people then surely it is not
a big leap to suggest that we should also be represented by
an Australian as our head of state.

David F comment 3- Unfortunately Reagan got in

Answer 3-

The US changes it's leaders more often due to the maximum 8 year term which impacts stability. Democracy is often more unstable than monarchy- in a sense- but when change occurs under monarchy it's potentially more disruptive. Perhaps for both democratic and monarchies the sizes and dimensions and stability of the 'nested sandboxes of freedom' are important- but should be adaptable to circumstances. You need to have the capability to fight off those that don't play by the same rules- but sadly this is the only way many can operate successfully. In our problematic 'modern society' there are those on the edge that perhaps have too much freedom to be compatible with the desire of most for stability and safety. As Is Mise said "benign anarchy" is unrealistic- perhaps an appeal to this principle most often is used to entice an opponent to show mercy- so they can crush their skull- there is something to be said for 'muscular peace'.

Control over resources and trade routes has always been critical to power. Sometimes all one has is bad decisions- a tight rope. There are always those who want to push you off to fall in their joy- some actors are more sane than others.

Jordan Peterson says it's easier to make things worse than better.

If Foxy said 'good morning' personally I'd be wondering her angles. Even if it is in fact a nice morning- misdirection. There are those outside the nested multiplicities of circles of trust, stability, safety.

Kudos Is Mise

Occassionally I read 'The Jerusalem Post'- and am amazed at the level of sophistication of thought- I'm certain that the sophistication of its politicians and think tanks is even higher. They appear holistic about their interest and the angles for power. Impressive. I wish my people were as aware