The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think that if the UK ever became a republic (highly-unlikely) that the Queen would move to Australia...
Reading this I get a picture in my mind. IF by chance this did happen, I can see the Queen very happily retiring to her beloved Balmoral in Scotland. I truly believe she loves it there. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or there is a chance that all of the Commonwealth Realms will get together and sign a treaty that will end the monarchy in all of their countries. And they all at once become republics?

Well I still think this is a very good option ^ once the UK becomes a republic
 
In Australia and Canada, the monarchy cannot be ended by treaty. There is a formal constitutional amendment process in both countries (and possibly more) that would have to be gone through.
 
In Australia and Canada, the monarchy cannot be ended by treaty. There is a formal constitutional amendment process in both countries (and possibly more) that would have to be gone through.

Yes you are correct, I put incorrect information by suggesting the monarchy could be ended by treaty. In both of those countries you have mentioned I think the Provincial/State governments in different parts of the country all have to pass legislature granting the abolition of the monarchy. And then after that the federal government has to "okay" it NATIONWIDE all over the country. It is a long process that would take a few years (which is a very long time). I just looked it up, thanks for correcting me!
 
Another way the monarchy could be put to end is if a Prime Minister and Governor-General team up to form some type of dictatorship and use their powers to take over the country. Together they could disband parliament and cause a constitutional crisis. Making themselves President and Prime Minister over the country. Form a new constitution, but I HIGHLY DOUBT THIS WILL EVER HAPPEN. Just another possibility.
 
In Australia it is simpler than that.

It is a referendum of the people that requires two conditions to be met:

1) a majority of the population (50% + 1 - so out of 14,000,000 7,000,001 would meet the first point)
2) a majority of the states (4/6 states have to also have a majority in favour - the two territories don't count here).

If we got that (we didn't in 1999 where neither condition was met) then we would become a republic.

The legislation reguired would be in the federal government to set up the referendum and no state legislation would be needed as it would be automatic once it happened federally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Australia not ready for a republic until after Queen Elizabeth II

Public support for a republic has slumped to a 16-year low with more Australians in favour of retaining the monarchy for now.


As you read the article there are some interesting figures - it isn't so much that Australians are in favour of keeping the monarchy indefinitely but rather when it should end.

- 31 per cent said Australia should never become a republic.
- 29 per cent said Australia should become a republic as soon as possible.
- 34 per cent said Australia should become a republic only after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends.

Only 31% of Australians now support keeping the monarchy indefinitely and 63% want us to be a republic according to the poll - it is a question of timing not fact. That also leave 6% undecided. On that basis a simple 'Do you think that Australia should become a republic?' question put to the Australian people would get a resounding 'Yes' vote.
 
Putting off constitutional change is just a way of deflecting the issue, the current reality in Australia is that the push for a republic has all but died down. The perceptions that the media (especially the non Australian media) like to give is that Australia is right on the edge of declaring itself a republic.

That's not the case. Julia Gillard 2 weeks ago to the Canberra Press Club was asked about Australia becoming a republic. Her reply made a small article in print media no online. She said that unlike in the 1990s there is no major movement for a republic, no public push, currently there is no great call for constitutional change. By deferring questions on the republic by saying 'wait until the Queen passes' was better than saying 'well I'm a republican but it's not likely to happen'. Politicians choose what issues to push often based on what is of high importance to the public at large. This was well illustrated in the 1990s when Australia had a monarchist Prime Minister and yet public lobbying meant that a referendum on constitutional change was called. If there were major support and interest in a republic right now, then that's when the referendum or plebiscite would be called. The fact that Bob Brown's call was defeated last year in the Senate showed that there isn't a call and the elected government members didn't vote for it shows that the support is not there.

Kevin Rudd when he was campaigning for PM said he would have a referendum, as soon as he was elected that changed to 'not in his first term of office' it then progressed to 'not until the Queen passes' and that's the line his successor has gone with. Had their been support for constitutional change then it would not have been pushed into a nebulus future. (who knows when the Queen will die? The process takes time, will it even succeed?)

Last year being that it was 10 years since the referendum, various polling took place. The information from their polls showed that support for the republic dropped, support for the monarchy remained static, but what actually increased was those who didn't care, and saw no need for change. In 1999 the age group that was the main supporter of a republic was the 19 to 29 year group, in 2009 it was the 29 to 39 year group. So the same age group remains the strongest supporters of a republic and what's happened in 10 years is that they've aged a decade, but younger people have not joined the support for a republic. From my experience with that young adult age group constitutional change is not a priority with them. Environmental issues, climate change, financial issues--being able to own their own homes, globilisation are the issues that are important to them. Republic or the status quo has no impact on their lives or their futures, therefore it's not something that they are going to lobby for or push for.

It's this type of lack of interest that frustrates members of the republican movement (which at the moment has its lowest membership), the media deferring the decision on a republic until after the Queen dies is an attempt not to admit defeat. OK so you don't want a republic now, how about we put it to you, after the Queen dies?

It's easy to say Australians won't vote for a republic now as they have respect and admiration for the Queen, but then does that mean that during the 1990s Australians had no respect or admiration for the Queen and so lobbied for a referendum on the republic? No. it's all in the timing, and the momentum for the push for a republic has passed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder whether Bob Brown will put up his private member's bill again when his party controls the Senate (which they didn't do last time and which is why it was defeated).

Based on the kids I have taught over the last 10 years - sure the republic isn't high on their agenda but consistently they have been strongly supportive of a republic. We teach the Republican debate as part of the compulsory NSW History course (although many schools don't) and we run a mock referendum each year even asking the parents to vote as if they were doing absentee votes. We also include in the package for parents questionsd relating to how they voted in 1999 and whether or not their views have changed and why (all anonymously of course). We even have had parents who have done this three or four times now due to number of children and some of them have been interesting as to when they changed their views (if they did).


We are now running over 90% for a republic but we are in a high migrant area where 'spot the Aussie' (a person of British or Northern European descent) is a regular pasttime in the classroom, streets etc. Reasons for changing from monarchist to republican include - Charles wedding to Camilla, Mary's marriage to Frederick (they are so much more loving than the BRF so get rid of the BRF), defeat of Howard government and recently the deposition of Kevin Rudd. Personally I changed because of this, and other royal foras on which I post, from ardent monarchist to 'bring on the republic as soon as possible'.

No matter how you slice the figures or the arguments about timing the majority of Australians want to be a republic at some time in the future and the Queen's death seems likely to trigger a new push if one doesn't come sooner. I would doubt that William will be King of Australia (thank goodness).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... a simple 'Do you think that Australia should become a republic?' question put to the Australian people would get a resounding 'Yes' vote.
Not quite. The article in the Sun-Herald also stated:

"A Sun-Herald/Nielson poll two weeks before the federal election [held on 21 August] showed that - when asked straight out if Australia should become a republic -
48% of the 1400 respondents opposed a constitutional change (a rise of 8% since 2008)
44% said we should change (a drop of 8% since 2008).
Backing for a republic is at its lowest since 1994."

Of course the responses will depend entirely upon the wording of the question asked, but as I posted back on the 17th of August, the republic issue is off the political agenda.
 
And yet over 60% say become a republic now or when the Queen dies in the same article.
Something doesn't quite gel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said, the wording of the question will produce different responses.
A question such as "Do you want an Australian republic?" will get quite a different answer to "Are you in favour of constitutional change to bring about an Australian republic?" or "Should an Australian republic wait until the death of the Queen?" or "Should the constitution be rewritten to make Australia a republic?"

What we can say for sure is that at the moment neither of the two major political parties is interested in raising the issue.
 
Last edited:
As I said, the wording of the question will produce different responses.
A question such as "Do you want an Australian republic?" will get quite a different answer to "Are you in favour of constitutional change to bring about an Australian republic?" or "Should an Australian republic wait until the death of the Queen?" or "Should the constitution be rewritten to make Australia a republic?"

What we can say for sure is that at the moment neither of the two major political parties is interested in raising the issue.

Totally agree that it depends on how it is worded.

For me I have to say that although I would support a republic if it was put to the vote I am not bothered that it is not being raised at the moment.

Personally I am more concerned about the cost of housing, increased costs of living etc which affect me everyday rather than something that does not impact on my day to day life. Although Australians I believe do support a republic I personally think that a lot of people are doing it tough financially at the moment (at least in the area I am in) and would not appreciate the costs involved in becoming a republic.

In the recent election there was a lot of debate on which party wasted the most money and I think that the cost of becoming a republic would also potentially come into this category at the moment although once the GFC is over maybe the mood will change again.

This is all just my opinion of course. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When the Republican issue arises. Do we not have an obligation through being subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen our Sovereign to support her. Do we not have a duty to serve her when the question arises and to defend her. Is she now our Sovereign Lady...our source of unity, the living, alive symbol of our nation of peoples. Does she not represent all people of society. She is our Sovereign, our Queen, our Lady we must defend her. No Government shall rid us of our Sovereign Lady...they do not have the power in my eyes. I believe when the Republic comes...the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they shall always be our Sovereign and Monarch. Always. He/She shall remain in my and I hope our hearts. They cannot take Her away from us. I believe even though she may not play a major role..in this Realm or her Own Realm she plays a major part in symbolism and in Name.

In my eyes....to rid the Monarchy of Australia..to rid its Sovereign from this Realm is an act of high treason.
 
Last edited:
As you read the article there are some interesting figures - it isn't so much that Australians are in favour of keeping the monarchy indefinitely but rather when it should end.

- 31 per cent said Australia should never become a republic.
- 29 per cent said Australia should become a republic as soon as possible.
- 34 per cent said Australia should become a republic only after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends.

Only 31% of Australians now support keeping the monarchy indefinitely and 63% want us to be a republic according to the poll - it is a question of timing not fact. That also leave 6% undecided. On that basis a simple 'Do you think that Australia should become a republic?' question put to the Australian people would get a resounding 'Yes' vote.

Is it not true...as subjects of HM the Queen, our Sovereign we are too respect and love whomever holds the office of Monarch...whether it be The Prince of Wales or The Queen.

You respect the office.
 
HM the Queen and Prime Minister Julia Gillard

I wonder when and if, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is going to meet Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Maybe she might go to Buckingham Palace or it might be CHOGM 2010.
 
Her Majesty, The Queen and Australia

I wonder whether Her Majesty, will do a visit to Australia and its States. Does anyone know?
 
When CHOGM 2011 was announced for Perth, it was speculated that the Queen would come, but there haven't been any official announcements yet.
 
I wonder when and if, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is going to meet Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Maybe she might go to Buckingham Palace or it might be CHOGM 2010.

HM has to be invited to Australia, should she come for the CHOGM in Perth then she may meet Julia Gillard.
 
Great topic!

On whether we should become a Republic or not, my own personal feelings about it is unless the government or someone can show me evidence, with at least some detail, that we are better off as a Republic than I have no interest in changing anything.

In my opinion, I have not seen or heard enough evidence or information from those calling for a Republican to warrant any changes. Being patriotic and finally standing alone without the Poms and the monarchy over our heads is not enough. I want to see numbers, statistics...something that can at least guarantee that this is the better choice.

And I'm not sure launching another referendum after the Queen dies would work. In fact, it could backfire. Charles and Camilla may not be popular now but the Queens death could endear people more to the monarchy and people might actually be more determined to keep it.

Or even yet, what if Prince William is the one who becomes King next instead of Prince Charles? I know it would be breaking with tradition but I'm sure that the monarchy know that Charles and Camilla aren't exactly on everyone's favourite list and could see it as a chance to bring some security to the monarchy for a while anyway.

Personally, I think that's going to happen. It's more than likely Prince Charles senses the mood of the public and I honestly think he doesn't want it anyway. So I get the feeling that he knows Prince William is favoured by the public and would most likely abdicate the title to his son.

And I think Australians would support Prince William. His mother was much loved here and most see her in him so what would the chances for a republic be then?
 
Charles will not abdicate - and that is what it will take for him not to be automatically King. He sees it as his duty and his destiny - he was raised by the Queen Mum remember and the horrors of the abdication within the family would have been impressed upon him.

I don't think it is a popularity contest at all.

Most Australians have no real feelings one way or the other but the basic argument is that we should have our own Head of State - someone who can represent us and us alone.

It is cringing when a foreign Head of State, at a State Dinner, offers a toast to the Head of State - The Queen, who isn't there but is asleep in London and it is embarrasing to me as an Australian.

I used to be a monarchist but can't wait for another chance to vote on having our own Head of State.

The pity is that Queen Victoria or Edward VII didn't establish their sons/daughters as the Kings/Queen's in their own right in countries like Australia and Canada. By now we would have had 100 years of our own monarchy - and people would have accepted that but we should have our own Head of State and not share one with 16 other countries. It is about self-respect on the international stage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You respect the office.
I can respect the office without wanting to have that office perpetuated.
...Do we not have an obligation through being subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen our Sovereign to support her...
We are not subjects of the Queen but citizens of Australia.
In a democracy the will of the people is sovereign - not any individual. The Queen recognises that - as she said in 1999 when we had the referedum vote - 'that is a decision for the Australian people' (her words not mine).

It is not high treason to vote on a constitutionally put question by our elected government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles will not abdicate...
I respect your opinions. Here's the way I'm looking at it: People are questioning the validity of a Monarchy in today's society and public support is waning. If they are looking at it from my point of view, then the best opportunity to change things is put a young and popular heir next in line. There is no point in having Prince Charles as the King when he is one of the least popular royals, and adding salt to injury, Camilla would be his Queen in a nation who are still very much attatched to Diana.

I get what your saying but I cannot vote on a Republic based on the reasons you have given. I want to see evidence that if we become a Republic, we would be better off than under the current system. So far, I have not seen anything that can tell me by becoming a Republic it's gonna make any difference to my life as it is. So why fix it if it ain't broke? We have developed and prospered as a nation under the current system.

I'm pretty certain the PM is an elected representative of the state.
Australia is already a stand alone country. The world knows that we are a country governing itself. We have our own currency, we have our own culture and history, as short as it may be, people around the world know things that are native to our country...eg Kangaroo, Koala, Vegemite etc...They recognize it as Australian and nothing else. How can you not think Australia hasn't got self-respect already? There's plenty to be proud of. So many great Australians representing us out in the world.

Besides, I want to keep supporting my country at Commonwealth games. I cannot imagine Australia not being a part of it. We make those games:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know many other Aussies get embarrased when foreign leaders toast a foreign Head of State as ours - they acknowledge that we don't have our own person to represent us at the very top levels.

Being a republic won't change being in the Commonwealth - unless the rest of the Commonwealth refuse to allow us to remain. The vast majority of countries within the Commonwealth are republics these days and at least one has never even been part of the British Empire.

Being a republic won't necessarily see any major change in how things are done now except that every so often we elect the Head of State rather than have a foreigner in that place.

Having William actively campaign against Australia originally for the 2018 World Cup (we originally applied for both 2018 and 2022) shows that the Royal Family put the UK before the other kingdoms and that was embarrassing as well - the future King of Australia actively saying to the rest of the world 'don't give the 2018 World Cup to Australia'. We need to be absolutely clear and separate from Britain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As much as I love the British Royal Family as an Australian Citizen I do believe that it is time that Australia became a republic.

Yes, William was popular when he was visiting but there is a great difference between being popular for a 2 week visit and being popular when you are a monarch and in reality can only come to Australia every 5 years or so.

IMO I think that in Australia we look at the Royal Family more as celebrities and want to know the 'gossip' about them rather than with reverence as our reigning monarchs and although our interest in their lives wouldn't change by becoming a republic I believe that a republic would allow us to get a head of state more representative of the Australian people.
 
I'm pretty certain the PM is an elected representative of the state.
Australia is already a stand alone country. The world knows that we are a country governing itself. We have our own currency, we have our own culture and history, as short as it may be, people around the world know things that are native to our country...eg Kangaroo, Koala, Vegemite etc...They recognize it as Australian and nothing else. How can you not think Australia hasn't got self-respect already? There's plenty to be proud of. So many great Australians representing us out in the world.

But it's a known fact that Australia, on a global scale and as a global brand, is not taken particularly seriously. Australia wields very little influence on a bi lateral scale and although our currency is doing particularly well atm, it's only a matter of time before it turns to dust again. We are not thought of as an 'important' political player and are seen as a country which often brings very little incentive to the table. On both accounts I think it quite underestimating, and becoming a federal republic would imo certainly help influence a more clear and precise image (and direction) for this nation abroad. Instead of being a country known only for Koala's, kangaroo's and vegemite...


The monarchy best served it's purpose in Australia during an era where the populous was predominately made up of caucasion residents. It appealed to the mentality, and to the 1st and 2nd generation Australians in general. But society now is so incredibly diverse and many have no personal connection to the institution of monarchy because they have come from, or are descended of countries that do not observe that form of government. As time proceeds, our identity as a nation continues to evolve and the connection to the monarchy becomes less and less relevant.

Although understandable due to her age, our own Head of State has not set foot on Australian soil (except for one event at Australia House in London) in 5 years, this coming March. It really is absurd when one removes their prejudice, as I myself have just done. I'm all for the monarchy whilst the Queen is alive, but when she passess away I do feel that then would be an appropriate time to say thank you, best of luck, will often write and farewell.
 
Last edited:
Having William actively campaign against Australia originally for the 2018 World Cup (we originally applied for both 2018 and 2022) shows that the Royal Family put the UK before the other kingdoms and that was embarrassing as well - the future King of Australia actively saying to the rest of the world 'don't give the 2018 World Cup to Australia'. We need to be absolutely clear and separate from Britain.

I didn't know we were competing against Britain for the same World Cup. :ohmy: That makes it worse. He was actively campaigning against us! The beast! :lol:

I think this is the sort of thing that is going to influence your average Aussie of UK heritage whose ancestors are buried in English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh soil and who feel a lingering connection to the motherland, but usually doesn't care much about politics or the RF, to decide to vote for the republic next time. It brings home to them the fact that we don't have someone on the world stage who is there to represent us and root for us and us alone. Once HM is no longer our Queen, more and more of us will question the situation and there will be very little opposition to the change. Unless the silly politicians ask the wrong question again.
 
Back
Top Bottom