The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 04-24-2015, 03:02 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Presumably Aussies knew the Queen (and her family) were 'foreigners' and 'non-Australian citizens' when they voted on whether to keep the Queen or not, and they voted to keep her.
Australians did not vote to keep the Queen, they voted to reject the referendum question put to them, which was: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament". If the wording of the question had ended with "President", I would agree that Australians had voted to keep the Queen, but that wasn't the question and it's not that simple. There were many reasons for the defeat. In this detailed paper paper written in 2000, High Court Justice Michael Kirby points to ten possible reasons: Law and Justice Foundation - The Australian Republican Referendum 1999 - Ten Lessons

The proposal was defeated 45.13% for and 54.87% against. That is a helluva lot of Australians who wanted a republic. Had the question put been along the lines of: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by an Australian Head of State", with the details of the method of appointment/election of the Head of State to be settled later, the result might have been very different. Opinion polls at the time indicated that 70% of Australians favoured a directly elected President but were strongly against the appointed model. I've never understood why, because I think the minimalist change approach, which is what the appointed model involves, would be more likely to appeal to the majority of Australians.

A directly elected president would have created all sorts of problems since we couldn't just, essentially, scrub out the Queen's name and call the Governor-General the President, we would end up with a completely different model, more along the lines of what you have in the USA. Having recently watched the box set of "The West Wing", I could never vote for such a model. I want an Australian Head of State who owes his/her first loyalty to Australia and Australians, but if the directly elected US presidential model was the only option I'd vote to keep what we've got. At the time I voted against the proposal, but at the time I was a monarchist. If the same question were asked now, I would vote for it, but that's not likely to happen.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 04-24-2015, 03:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Yes, a directly elected President is not compatible with the Westminster system of Government. Well over 54 % of the Australian people didn't wish for a republic in that referendum and they did understand the issues. I don't think that it can be said that a majority only voted the proposal down because of the proposed model.

Also, since then, polls have shown support for a republic receding, especially among the young. If a referendum on the monarchy were held tomorrow I believe there would be a similar result to the first one.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 04-24-2015, 04:01 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 125
The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...

The last referendum was not what the Australian people wanted, the model put forward was a joke. The overwhelming consensus at the time was for a republic and the government begrudgingly put forward their ideal Republic model. This model was rejected by the people, not the idea of a republic.
Personally a constitutional republic in Australia is a good idea, but the model going forward needs to be one that involves the Australian people. The right to directly vote in our elected leader and not one deemed appropriate by a select few.
Australia is a diverse country with an indigenous people who should have input into the constitution of their country. The many other ethnic groups that make this country what it is today, also deserve a say. Our history is vast and should not be swept under a rug, it should also be allowed to impact how we choose to govern and remember where & how we got here. There is nothing wrong with still being part of the Commonwealth, but we need a constitution based on our identity.
I think there are many Australians that don't understand what a constitutional Australia would mean and therefore don't see the point of making the change.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 04-24-2015, 04:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Well, if the model put forward was a joke then the republican leaders at the time should have said so. Instead they were out night and day, urging people to vote 'Yes'. Why? Why not reject that particular model after the convention?

There were many explanations printed and discussed in the media at the time so I hardly feel that people didn't know what they were voting for. Presumably ethnic groups and indigenous people did have a vote in that referendum too.

You cannot have a U.S. style President operating alongside a Westminster system of government. It just wouldn't work. Good luck in getting parliamentarians of whatever stamp putting that up as a model.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 125
Having an elected leader put there by a select few is not ideal. I voted at the last referendum and ended up voting no because I didn't like not having a say in who ran the country. As the system stands now we have leaders of two parties and have an idea of who will lead as prime minister and what they are like. The model proposed would see someone leading the country that parliament decided on.
I think Australia froze last time and chose to say no to the parliamentary idea of a republic.
I'm not suggesting we become America I am suggesting we choose a model that suits who we are as a country, a diverse multi-cultural country.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 04-24-2015, 06:05 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
That's quite a revisionist view of the referendum you've posted Eden. I don't recall an "overwhelming consensus" for change at the time, and the Government did not "begrudgingly" put forward its preferred republican model. Prime Minister Paul Keating started the ball rolling for a Constitutional Convention to determine what model for a republic would go to a referendum. When the Government changed, and John Howard became Prime Minister, he could have scuppered the whole thing. But he decided the convention and referendum would go ahead. The republicans at the Constitutional Convention decided on the model that would go to the referendum, not the Australian Government. The Government, however, did insist that the wording of the question adequately described the proposed changes to the text of the Constitution (there was talk at the time that some republicans wanted to keep the word "republic" out of the question).

I agree with what you wrote Curryong. I think some of the Australian posters exaggerate the extent of republican sentiment here, and sometimes they presume to speak on behalf of all Australians, when quite clearly they do not.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 04-25-2015, 02:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
With respect, you've done it again. You state you 'now' know two people who were pro the award of a gong to Prince Philip, 'out of a population of 23 million'. So you 'know' the other twenty three million people and their views, do you?

I believe you stated once that because of the World Wars, Gallipoli, Changi etc., ex servicemen in your family hated the British. Somehow that got transposed in your post to 'people in Australia' hating the British, which is patently not so.

That people are prepared to take a decision about the future of their country based on what Tony Abbott did says a lot really, and I am Labor (have been all my adult life.)

As you pay regard to the media so much you will no doubt know that republicanism has been on the decline over the past few years according to polling, especially among the young.

Yes, let's have a plebiscite. I have an extended family of twenty five and know at least thirty more myself who voted 'No' in the referendum and haven't changed their views.
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 04-25-2015, 06:17 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
The problem is, as I see it, that too many cannot discriminate between the Constitutional and the personal.

The Constitutional debate is something which I welcome and endorse - all modern, 'grown up', democratic societies should continually examine its governance, rules and regulations, else they never really advance and remain blindly in thrall to the past, for its own sake. The personal is another matter.

Continually attacking a group of people whom none of us knows and for reasons usually based on surmise, rumour and scandal-mongering, or some journalists' efforts to sell newspapers and magazines, I regard as an impertinence, to say the least.

The Royal Family are amongst the most maligned anywhere and whether or not some of the rumour is true, my position remains that so long as the Australian Constitution informs me that Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State of Australia, she, and her heirs and successors are entitled to respect and a welcome from all Australians. We have a ballot box in this country which allows us to disagree.

Criticisms should always be based on fact and certain knowledge and bear a particular relevance to the issue at hand, rather than some emotional response which is often as spurious as what it's responding to. A particular example to hand in my opinion was the slandering and humiliation of Prince Andrew in his erstwhile role as Trade Ambassador for the UK.

Yesterday, the POW clearly identified with Australia and New Zealand; he didn't just 'do his duty'. His demeanour and dedication was praiseworthy and honourable.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 04-25-2015, 09:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
Yes, I agree. Both Prince Charles and Prince Harry did extremely well at these commemoration ceremonies and both were clearly moved.
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 07-03-2015, 11:14 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty91charmed View Post
Thank you to both of you... Obviously it was a silly question from my part
Your question was not silly at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
Not a silly question at all. I too can't fathom why they are coming...again!

We do have a royal lover in our Prime Minister Tony Abbot though. I imagine he is the reason we are spending so much money on the English royals.

November is a good month to visit. Sun, not too hot, not cold. Perhaps Mr Abbot wants to advertise Australia to the English as a great country to migrate to?
It will cost you more money to become a republic and the English royals is also your royals. The Queen is Australia's head of state.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 07-03-2015, 11:31 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
It will cost you more money to become a republic and the English royals is also your royals. The Queen is Australia's head of state.
You sure about that? These visits are sure to add up!

In my opinion, they are not our royals. They are English and have no power over us. It is symbolic only. Hence why it has no real purpose for us.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 07-03-2015, 12:23 PM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
In my opinion, they are not our royals. They are English and have no power over us. It is symbolic only. Hence why it has no real purpose for us.
We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 07-03-2015, 12:58 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.

And not only that but they are 'British' not 'English'
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 07-03-2015, 01:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
And not only that but they are 'British' not 'English'
Another thing if I've learned anything from my time here at TRF is that Australia only has The Queen of Australia. Her family doesn't figure into it and only use their British titles there by courtesy.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 07-03-2015, 02:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Canada regularly has multiple visits by the senior royals even to the extent of one leaving and another arriving. For the rest of us it is unusual - particularly when Charles and Camilla were here only three years ago and the last time Charles visited before that was in 2005, just before he married Camilla.

The cynic in me suggests that Charles asked to come to remind Australians and New Zealanders which of the royals is the heir to the throne after visits by Harry, twice and William, Kate and George only last year.

The country being visited has to issue an invitation of course but I am sure that hints could be made.

True in 1999 we voted 'No' to the republican model on offer - as what the polls have consistently shown is that people want to directly elect the President but we have never been asked the simple question 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?'. At the moment the polls suggest that would get a 'No' vote but as it isn't on the agenda, at the moment, it is really a moot point. If it was back on the table those figures could change drastically (take a look at the polls in the lead up to the most recent UK elections that have everyone predicting another coalition government but instead the Conservatives won with a small majority). Who knows, therefore, how accurate any polls are?


The 160th anniversary of Charles' former Australian school - Geelong Grammar - may also have something to do with his visit. That was a major focus of his visit in 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 07-03-2015, 11:32 PM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but if I am not mistaken, the last time the Australians were asked about abolishing the monarchy, they declined.
I voted No because I did not accept the model put up. Had they asked me if I wanted a republic, I would have voted YES.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 07-03-2015, 11:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I voted No because I did not accept the model put up. Had they asked me if I wanted a republic, I would have voted YES.
I, think, after the queen is gone, there will be changes is many Commonwealth Nations. Having a foreign head of state makes no sense.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 07-04-2015, 12:40 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I, think, after the queen is gone, there will be changes is many Commonwealth Nations. Having a foreign head of state makes no sense.
I agree. In any case, I would argue that we are more aligned with the US than UK. Look at how many of your force are here. And how many more are scheduled to arrive!
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 07-04-2015, 12:57 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I agree. In any case, I would argue that we are more aligned with the US than UK. Look at how many of your force are here. And how many more are scheduled to arrive!

I disagree. I don't think there will be too much change. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are already republics. There is no equivalent US led group that I am aware of and, again, most countries are already aligned with the U.S.

There might be a rotating Head of the Commonwealth rather than it being the Monarch but I can't honestly see many, if any, countries electing to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 07-04-2015, 04:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
I know many people who did likewise. I must admit I voted NO because at the time I supported the monarchy for Australia but since joining TRF I have been converted to the republican cause - thanks to everyone here who opened my eyes and changed my opinion on this issue.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
australia, british commonwealth, elizabeth ii, governor general, julia gillard, monarchy versus republic, parliament, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc... Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 552 11-14-2016 07:12 PM
The Queen and New Zealand: Residences, Governor-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 51 09-08-2016 11:29 PM
Brazilian Imperial Palaces, residences etc Marengo The Imperial Family of Brazil 23 03-14-2015 10:01 PM
General Discussion about Dutch Royal Residences Tina Dutch Royal Residences 20 10-06-2014 05:13 AM
The Queen and the Caribbean: Residences, Governors-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 48 02-25-2012 05:56 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince harry princess beatrice hats princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats time travel women deliver conference


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises