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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The Director of ARM, Peter FitzSimons has apparently recruited some more members since the State Premier's letter was released on the 25th of January, hardly surprising. He concedes though that representation among Australians in their 20s is not there yet. The assumption that it's only a matter of time before the inevitable is one of the most infuriating aspects of the entire debate. Assumption was the undoing of Gough Whitlam and many others before and since.

Feed the hungry, house the homeless, employed the unemployed, treat the sick, educate the young, care for the elderly, then indulge your desire for abstract debate, but do not presume the end of the monarchy in Australia is already written - it isn't.
 
Thank you for posting the link. As with most things related to the Australian monarchy, there will be a week of feigned outrage or mockery and then everything will return to normal. An attempt to make something out of nothing. The Federation $5 Notes introduced in 2000 caused a stir because they omitted the monarch's image. The proved unpopular and were gradually removed from circulation. I quite like the updated image.
 
:previous: Okay!

What about William?

The animosity towards Charles I can somehow understand, even though I think it's a bit unfair. But George over William? That one I don't get. :ermm:
 
The headline is misleading. William is still there it's just now George is in the mix

"A staggering 49 per cent wanted William to be our King and 32 per cent were happy to vote for Prince George, even though he's still a baby,"

Prince Charles has 25 percent.
 
Last edited:
I knew this would eventually happen, but did not think it would be so soon.

I'm sure in 2036, during the reign of the octogenarian and revered King Charles III, people will prefer the young and popular Prince George over his middle aged father, the Prince of Wales.

History always repeats itself.
 
:previous: Thanks. Perhaps I should read a little slower. :ermm:
 
The most significant information in the poll was that only

Thirty-five per cent of the participants were in favour of dismissing the monarch and declaring Australia a republic and, most surprisingly to Rieden, only 23 per cent of the 18-24 year-olds surveyed supported a republic.
​
Click to expand...

​
 
WreathOfLaurels said:
After Brexit, Britannia’s subjects head for AusExit – POLITICO

Is this actually the case or are they just hanging out in the wrong part of Sydney again?
Click to expand...

The article is serious. Membership of the Australian Republican Movement did significantly increase after the Brexit result. Mind you, it is very easy to become a member of the ARM: just a few minutes on the internet. It is quite another thing to get down to the nuts and bolts of formulating a plan and a model that would be acceptable to enough of the Australian people. I think the Trump situation has frightened a lot of us.
 
Roslyn said:
The article is serious. Membership of the Australian Republican Movement did significantly increase after the Brexit result. Mind you, it is very easy to become a member of the ARM: just a few minutes on the internet. It is quite another thing to get down to the nuts and bolts of formulating a plan and a model that would be acceptable to enough of the Australian people. I think the Trump situation has frightened a lot of us.
Click to expand...
This article is not serious, and I've found several errors. And articles like that, is being written all the times.
 
OK thanks, because I've not heard anything about a surge of NZ republicanism post brexit until I read that article and was wondering about the veracity of the Aussie claims
 
Roslyn said:
The article is serious. Membership of the Australian Republican Movement did significantly increase after the Brexit result. Mind you, it is very easy to become a member of the ARM: just a few minutes on the internet. It is quite another thing to get down to the nuts and bolts of formulating a plan and a model that would be acceptable to enough of the Australian people. I think the Trump situation has frightened a lot of us.
Click to expand...

I think the best solution for Australia, if it became a republic, would be to have a non-political head of state like Ireland or Iceland and avoid the US or French form of presidency. What are the thoughts of Australians on this?
 
Roslyn said:
The article is serious. Membership of the Australian Republican Movement did significantly increase after the Brexit result. Mind you, it is very easy to become a member of the ARM: just a few minutes on the internet. It is quite another thing to get down to the nuts and bolts of formulating a plan and a model that would be acceptable to enough of the Australian people. I think the Trump situation has frightened a lot of us.
Click to expand...

That's what sunk the 1999 referendum too. It's also what puts people in NZ off as well :)
 
Jacknch said:
I think the best solution for Australia, if it became a republic, would be to have a non-political head of state like Ireland or Iceland and avoid the US or French form of presidency. What are the thoughts of Australians on this?
Click to expand...

No. One of the major driving factors behind Aussie republicanism is the issue of the political system and the fact that the federal government is often hamstrung by needing all the states to agree on certain matters and that a Westminster parliament on top of a US federal system is not a good fit - a somewhat more powerful president would be a solution to a lot of these problems and unlike the current issues with the PM would not be held hostage by their own parties.
 
:previous:

Thanks for that. It goes to show that each country works in a different way and has its own requirement and needs when it comes to a head of state. It seems that keeping the status quo for the time being is the easiest option for the Australian people.
 
At the time of the republican referendum most republican Australians did not want a figurehead President. They preferred a more powerful President they could vote for. Parliamentarians in both Houses were not really in favour of this programme, which is not compatible with the Westminster system.

As in Canada, there is no appetite here for a complete overhaul such as becoming a republic would involve. There are too many other issues to try and solve.

I haven't heard anyone discussing republicanism for a very long time and I don't believe, apart from some people relieving frustrations and acting on the spur of the moment, that there is a surge of republicanism in Australia. It hasn't been an issue in these elections.
 
Its the exact same in New Zealand. Nobody has said anything and if anything the monarchy seems to be more popular than ever, there's no appetite for change and at the time being the status quo seems to be what people want. We've got other problems to sort - monarchy vs republic is at the bottom of the national to do list at mo.
 
Roslyn said:
The part about ARM membership is serious though.

Brexit gives rise to Australian republic push
Click to expand...

This article is written by Peter FitzSimons, who is (as you of course know) the chair of the Australian Republican Movement and he is (as the Australian monarchists says) a bully who has said some very awful and shocking things about the royal family.

When it comes to the membership of the Australian Republican Movement: The membership did increase after the Philip thing too, and the ARM have said for almost 20 years now (to the media) that they has the momentum.

But as the monarchists says: Young australians supports the monarchy more than before, and that the monarchy is going to win by a larger margin than in 1999. And they say that is why Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull don't want a referendum on the monarchy while the Queen is alive.

And here's another ridiculous article from June 25:
Brexit Vote Gives 'Renewed Drive' To Australian Republican Movement
In Australia, the historic UK vote has sent pro-republic supporters into a tizz, with hopes it could generate momentum for independence from Britain that's stalled since the failed 1999 referendum.
Click to expand...
Australia is independent from Britain.
Prime Minister Turnbull led the failed republican movement in 1999 and said earlier this year that the timing for any future referendum would be crucial. He has warned not to move too fast on the issue.

Even if momentum does increase for another tilt at independence from Britain it's likely to be an uphill battle as recent polling shows support in Australia for the monarchy has lifted since the referendum.
Click to expand...
Again, Australia is independent from Britain.

And the Australian Monarchist League had this to say about this article, ''Please.... If anything, Brexit will strengthen our relationship with Great Britain and the role of and standing of our shared Head of State.''
 
Last edited:
WreathOfLaurels said:
No. One of the major driving factors behind Aussie republicanism is the issue of the political system and the fact that the federal government is often hamstrung by needing all the states to agree on certain matters and that a Westminster parliament on top of a US federal system is not a good fit - a somewhat more powerful president would be a solution to a lot of these problems and unlike the current issues with the PM would not be held hostage by their own parties.
Click to expand...

This is going to be the stumbling block here. I would only vote for an Irish-type presidential system, i.e. replace the current G-G with someone doing essentially the same thing but called President. (This is also the sort of model envisaged by the ARM.) I would not want a popularly-elected political president. IMO once you start giving the president real power you get into the sort of strife they have in the US. I would rather have one of the ineffectual but benign Windsor chinless wonders as the head of state than a Trump. We have a system that works. It has its flaws but it works.
 
Last edited:
eya;1936683[URL said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/04/the-queen-and-the-dismissal-the-palace-letters-are-not-personal-and-must-be-released[/URL]

The Queen and the dismissal: The Palace letters are not personal and must be released.
Click to expand...

:previous:The whole topic of "the dismissal" (if you have not guessed yet) is still toxic in Australian politics - which is really saying something as Australian Politics has been described as "a soap opera directed by Quintein Tarantino". In fact, there was a lot in common between the dismissal and the Apiostata[sic] of 1965 in Greece, with George Papandreou standing for Whitlam and Sir John Kerr (acting on behalf of HM Queen as GG) taking Constantine's role respectively.

Whitlam had lost the confidence of the house following a number of overdue reform measures, but was also regarded by much of the security establishment as politically suspect due to his views on the vietnam war and the presence of the CIA and american military installations in Australia. His government was also plagued by a number of scandals. Whitlam's party had a majority in the lower house but the opposition lead by Malcolm Fraser had a majority in the Senate. On account of this Fraser was able to withhold Supply (ie veto the state budget), and Whitlam wanted to break the deadlock by calling for the reelection of half the senate. Kerr on the other hand, seems to have been persuaded by Fraser and a number of others (its all very cloak and dagger) to instead dismiss Whitlam from office (which he was able to do acting on HM's perogative) which he did on the 11 of November 1975, installing Fraser as a replacement. A snap election was called and Fraser and the coalition (a joint national-liberal party) won by a landslide. The political fallout from this is impossible to overstate. It left a rift in australian politics that has never really healed, damaged the reputation of the crown in the eyes of many in Australia, and soured the realtionship between Australia and the UK along with the US for their perceived involvement.

I should point out now that Dr Hockings theories are regarded as controversial and her findings are not accepted by all in the subject field, she is the official biographer of Whitlam and she has been critisised as conspiracy theorist, as there is a good argument that many of Whitlams problems and downfall owed more to his inability to manage his own party and lack of willingness to compromise on certain issues. I myself don't know one way or another, but this is the general gist of the case for and against.

The precise nature of the letters is open to interpretation but since HM was advising Kerr in her capacity as monarch, I would say there is a compelling interest for the communication to be made public, but if the precedent was set in Australia than it would be possible to make a similar argument in the UK which would have much larger consequences for the RF in the long run. For all we know it may well be a damp squib a la the black spider letters of prince charles, or it could be damning evidence of unwarranted political interference. Who knows?

watch this space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
 
As an Aussie I would say that the Dismissal has a certain resonance for those of us of er..a certain age! Whitlam urged Labor voters of the time to 'maintain the rage'. I'd say that the flame of indignation did burn brightly among Laborites for many years, (including me) and it has always been a popular subject among those interested in the history of politics within Australia.

However, many moons have passed since PM Whitlam stood on the steps of the old Parliament House in Canberra as the GG's Secretary read out the dissolution proclamation, ending of course with 'God Save the Queen', and Gough famously stated 'Well may we say God Save the Queen for nothing will save the Governor General!"

Permanently damaged the standing of the Monarchy in Australia? Not among young Australians if opinion polls have anything to do with it. Monarchy has enjoyed a resurgence among them. The 1970s and '80s were republican decades in spirit, and later prime ministers like Paul Keating in the 1990's kept the fires burning as well. However, the 1996 republican referendum under a monarchist PM John Howard failed.

Actually, and whether this is for better or for worse, the Dismissal has disappeared into the mists of history. It is of faint interest to those under forty, to Aussies in their twenties and thirties it might have been studied at school and that's it. Millenniums regard it as ancient history and couldn't care less, IMHO.

If the letters are released there might be some squawking by the news media here for a while, but that would soon die down. We have other things on our plates now in this part of the world other than scratching around among the dead embers of a 40 years old political controversy. (I would read the letters with interest though!)
 
Last edited:
Interestingly neither the Dismissal or the Republican Referendum are taught in Australian History syllabi anymore.

In 1999 NSW introduced a new History syllabus that really assumed that the republic would become a reality and so most of the textbooks that came out for that course dealt with the republic in theory (published before the vote) but the implication was that it would have become a reality.

In 2006 the modified syllabus made both the Dismissal and the Republic as optional topics but only one of them and not both.

Now neither are even in the course.

The post-WWII course is largely Changing Rights and Freedoms of Indigenous Australians and an option with Popular Culture and the Holocaust being the preferred options amongst most of my friends and colleagues. I know of no one who even touches on either of these issues anymore - and most of my colleagues etc are republicans.
 
This evening the Australian Republican Movement is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Malcolm Turnbull - the PM and the man who led the push for a republic in 1999 - gave the address calling for a plebiscite to ask whether or not Australians want a republic at all before a referendum on the model for that republic but not until after the passing of the Queen.

Australian Republic: Plebiscite first, then referendum
 
:previous: That's a shrewd suggestion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
60
Views
7K
SLV
SLV
Marengo
  • Locked
General News for Queen Elizabeth II: April 2021 - September 2022
12 13 14
Replies
398
Views
53K
JessRulz
JessRulz
muriel
Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Celebrations: 2022
26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
105K
yukari
Y
AC21091968
The Queen: A Life in Pictures (by Victoria Murphy)
Replies
1
Views
889
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
LadyFinn
The Crown Princess Couple's 10th Wedding Anniversary: 19th June 2020
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom