There is not a single reason for Australia to become a republic at the present time. The reasons for and against have been kicked around and argued about ad nauseum; there is no point in discussing them further. However, with Prince Charles now calling the UK's desperate attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigration "appalling", the Brits might knock the Monarchy on the head themselves.

Charles and William keep pontificating on immigration and climate, and lots of other political issues, like a couple of political hacks. They have not learned a thing from the Queen, whose popularity has a lot to do with her apolitical stance.

There is a childish belief among some monarchists that King Charles would stop shooting his mouth off as Prince Charles does. Yeah. Right.

Nigel Farage thinks that Charles will destroy the Monarchy, and he could be right. One King Charles was removed; the next one could go too, although not in the same way as Charles the First, perhaps.

The problem for Australia would then be solved without conflict and animosity because there would be no choice; not because of a juvenile whim. So, why don’t we wait and see? Let the country most affected by the royals sort it out. If the Crown shows that it is no longer worthy of the respect it has earned over the past 70 years, then that's the time to do something about it.

"Charles Might Destroy the Monarchy"

- One can only hope for such an outcome.

I watched the Platinum Jubilee Concert.

I watched David Attenborough's message flash onto the
IMAX screen about the environment, and I heard the
Queen's message about saving the environment and the
planet and of her being proud of both her son - Prince
Charles, and her grand-son, and her late husband Prince
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - and their concerns about the
environment and the planet.

I heard the loud applause from the public. And so it went.

I doubt very much if Prince Charles will destroy the Monarchy.
It is after all based on hereditary. He will inherit the
British throne - and he will undoubtedly become king.
I can't imagine Britain without the Monarchy. And I'm sure
neither can most of the British people.

As for Australia?

The Australian people will decide for themselves - if and when
the time comes to do so. And that is something that even the
Queen approves of. She has made it clear in the past - that it
was up to the Australian people to decide what they wanted.

Here is a link of the Queen's message on the environment -
on another occasion - part of which was played on the
screens at her Jubilee concert:

http://royal.uk/queen's-speech-cop26-evening-reception

My apologies. Here's the link again to her speech:

http://countryliving.com/uk/news/a38130948/read-cop26-speech-full/

As they say- "The King is dead, long live the King".

Self discipline is a hard lesson to learn- and the frustration of believing you have something to offer but not being able to do it can be overwhelming- until you realise that there are many subtle ways of acting.

As the Queen advising the young Queen Victoria apparently said- "people need something to do that gives them meaning- and if they don't they start doing silly things." Learning and doing...

Leaders are both decisive and esoteric.

Long live Queen Elizabeth.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« There is not a single reason for Australia to become a republic at the present time. The reasons for and against have been kicked around and argued about ad nauseum; there is no point in discussing them further. However, with Prince Charles now calling the UK's desperate attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigration "appalling", the Brits might knock the Monarchy on the head themselves »
.

1. Judging by the time it took to establish our old colonial constitution which was enacted by the Parliament of the UK and signed by Queen Victoria and which continues to remain in force today, it would take about ten years for Australia to become a republic if we started the process immediately.

« [Our old colonial] constitution was drafted between 1891 and 1898, through a series of conventions conducted by representatives of the six self-governing British colonies in Australia. The final draft was then approved in a set of referendums from 1898 to 1900. The British government objected to some elements of the final draft, but a slightly modified form was enacted as section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act was given royal assent [by Queen Victoria] on 9 July 1900, was proclaimed on 17 September 1900, and entered into force on 1 January 1901 » (Wikipedia).
.

2. Even if “the Brits knocked the Monarchy on the head themselves” as you suggest, that would not change anything for Australia. Since The Australia Act 1986, decisions in the UK have no effect on or in Australia. Australia would continue to remain a Constitutional Monarchy with Elizabeth II and her successors as our head of state.

If we want to become a republic, we must make the decision to do so ourselves.

.

CM

" … believing you have something to offer…" triggers questions. What do these people hell bent on republic think they have offer? What are their qualifications? What experience have they had?

It is very difficult to replace a system that is not too bad with something else, without making a hell of a lot of mistakes, and making things worse.

The republican wannabes don't even know what sort of republic they want. They want to ask a trick question based on the lie that an Australian is not a head of state, and bungle their way ahead from there.

No thanks.

I have yet to see one of Charles’s detractors who possesses even half of his abilities.

Prince Charles's role as the Heir to the Throne has been:

To undertake official Royal duties in support of
Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of Her Majesty's
Government.

To work as a charitable entrepreneur by supporting
charitable and civil causes which promote positive
social and environmental outcomes.

To promote and protect national traditions, virtues
and excellence.

And with this last one in mind as Princess Diana's
biographer Andrew Morton pointed out - that is something
Prince Charles took very very much to heart:

"Do you seriously expect me to be the first Prince of Wales
not to have a mistress?

The Australian people will decide for themselves
Foxy,
You'll need to be a tad more specific there. By Australian people do you mean those people who have the future of this Nation at heart or those who reside here & want to overthrow the British heritage of Australia & rule it by stupidity, hatred & general division !

Individual,

The real beauty of this country lies not in its
trees, seas, or cassowaries, but in the greatest
resource that any country can have: its people.

The story of Australia is the story of the Australian
people. And Australians come in all shapes and sizes,
and from all backgrounds. From the city, from the
country. They come from every state and often from
different countries - driven to become Australian.

The Australians that I know have contributed in so
many ways to this country. They have become titans of
business, legends of sport, giants of science,
colossi of philanthropy, and pygmies of politics (joke).

Australians have led the world in a myriad ways, and
whether generating wealth, inspiring youth, opening up the
vistas of human potential, saving lives, they have done
it all in a peculiarly Australian way, with a swagger
and style that marks a person out as an inhabitant of
the scientifically determined greatest country on earth.

Those are the Australian I'm talking about.

Those are the people I am talking about.

Those are the Australian I'm talking about.
Foxy,
me too but sadly, they're not the majority anymore !

Good points ttbn and Is Mise. I was referring to Prince Charles and others in the Royal Family that believe(d) that they have something to offer- are trying to contribute- Charles seems to be trying to contribute something but yes he should be looking at how Queen Elizabeth contributes- for example by bringing the parties together to discuss the issues- and allowing stakeholders to express their views- but not expressing a view of her own. The monarch needs to be careful not to show too much partisanship. It's a very difficult job- and certain parties are always trying to trap you- mis-quote you, etc.

But yes the Royal Family is trained from birth to serve Britain by a host of advisors- and thousand's of years of ancestral commitment and refinement so it would be difficult to find people that can offer as much in terms of ability and loyalty to the realm

There has been plenty of hints given by British PMs that reveal how
much opinion is expressed by the monarchs.
Why do you think they have those weekly meetings at Buckingham Palace ?
There have been rumors, always denied that the Queen has been very
direct in her opinions. I think that area is what is meant by service.

Still, how would I know?

.

I guess I posted this on the wrong thread. Here it is on the right thread :

.

In their book The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy (Hart 2020) Professor Robert Hazell and Bob Morris write :

« No new political theory on this topic has been developed since Bagehot wrote about the monarchy in The English Constitution (1867) »
.

The comments on this thread about Prince Charles remind me of the following passage in The English Constitution, pp 98-99 :

« I am afraid, looking to the early acquired feebleness of hereditary dynasties, that we must expect him to be a man of inferior ability. Theory and experience both teach that the education of a prince can be but a poor education and that a royal family will generally have less ability than other families. What right have we then to expect the perpetual entail on any family of an exquisite discretion, which if it be not a sort of genius, is at least as rare as genius ?

Probably in most cases the greatest wisdom of a constitutional king would show itself in well-considered inaction »
.

Here is the link :

http://play.google.com/books/reader?id=3g0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PP8&hl=fr

.

It appears that University College London's Professor Robert Hazell was also against Brexit- perhaps his politics is left if not far left.

http://www.harknessfellows.org.uk/event-reports/what-are-the-consequences-of-britain-leaving-the-eu-professor-robert-hazell-cbe

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

Thanks for the link to the article on the 2019 speech by Professor Robert Hazell on the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

You suggest that "perhaps his politics is left if not far-left", but I see nothing in the article - or in any of his writings I've been able to consult on the internet - that suggests that.

Are you deducing that he was against Brexit and therefore "left if not far-left" because he wrote :

"Brexit is mostly a political crisis rather than a constitutional crisis; a political crisis because the Cabinet is split; the Tory party is split; the country is split, roughly 50:50 over Brexit. Debate has raged for 1000 days since the 2016 referendum, and it is no nearer achieving resolution." ?

I can't imagine that to be the case, as many conservatives, particularly in the industrial, financial, and insurance industries were very much against Brexit.

It appears that Hazell is widely recognized by his peers as an authority on matters of government and constitutional law.

But, perhaps I am missing something.

Would you please clarify ?

.

Banjo Paterson- Maybe I need to do some more research. That's why I qualified it with "perhaps". It was a first pass- I didn't even read the article- just the byline. It's also important to understand why people say things.

"Regular contributor to Quadrant and practising Christian, Peter Smith"

Smith and his supporters are bigoted against gays, selectively demanding that Anglican Bishops hold with the so called word of God as espoused by the Christian Bible. At the same time Smith and others ignore commands from within their Bible to do and act in certain ways. These people have a hatred, what they don't have is credibility.

I think it is Gay-Communist's that are bigoted against the Church and want to destroy it from within and without. I'm sure most Churches are happy if Gay's want to set up their own Church with their own principles. I believe that this is also the reason that Paul1405 supports them.

How many of us know any gay people, let alone gay people
who want to set up their own churches, let alone gay
communists?

Perhaps we're moving in the wrong circles?

I rather think we have grown up?
Australia no longer needs to be 'tied to the apron strings' of Britain?
Nevertheless, there are many who genuinely feel more comfortable and secure, thinking we are allied with a country which is well established and resilient?
Regretfully, in practice, this concept is an idea only, and very little more than that.
While it does no harm in the short term, we should consider, seriously, the long term effect of living at home with 'mum', now that we are adults.
It really is time to forge our own path through the tangled jungle of 'history' which is yet to be written?

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I agree with you.

It will be the Australian people who will decide in which
direction they want the country to go.

Ipso, your similary is just not connected.

.

Dear Bazz,

.

If the monarchy were an elective position, I'm pretty sure the bookmakers would have Charles on long odds, to say the least.

As a matter of fact, I doubt that any of his siblings would do much better.

Would you put your money on Charles, Bazz ?

.

The vitality of the monarchy, relies on the vitality of a 96 year old woman. Its doomed.

Look at France as a republic example.
Macron is elected President but his party is a minority now with
the left party much bigger and Le Pen's party made large gains.
Now we have what we call a hung parliament with opposition having
the largest number of seats.
That is what happens when you elect a President.