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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
There can be no comparison, whatsoever, between Queen Victoria and our present monarch.

Queen Victoria did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve her prestigious place in the pantheon, whereas QEII had done absolutely everything!

Queen Victoria's reputation resides in the immensely talented and gifted men who steered her governments (Disraeli; Gladstone, etc) and her brilliant husband, the Prince Consort, Albert. Victoria, to me, has always seemed a little, fat, ignorant dunderhead, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag. The worst thing that happened to the then British Empire was the death of Victoria's accomplished and clever German prince. He gave more to British society than the Christmas tree and was an immense loss to the Commonwealth of Nations, which duly mourned the loss of his superior intellect and attainments.

Elizabeth II, has, alternatively, worked and worried herself almost to exhaustion ,to uphold the traditions of monarchy and to try to be accessible and relevant in all of her realms. No one, anywhere, even the monarchy's most virulent critics, could deny Her Majesty's sense of commitment and hnoour to duty and her unflagging efforts to maintain the throne's prestige.

I think that hard-line feminist do not have to narrow their gaze too far to see one of the world's most exemplary professional women, who's managed to successful combine her job with being a wife and mother. And to those who might say that she's privileged and can afford it, I disagree. Queen Elizabeth could easily have reneged on her duty as Monarch (as did Victoria) or her obligations as a mother. Despite the tabloids' ill-formed opinion, she did neither.

And here she is, over 80 years of age, a-going on, and on, and on...from her ingrained and admirable sense of duty.

It's not that Australians don't care about this; indeed, nearly everyone admires her tenacity and inherent goodness; it's just that she's not Australian and neither is her son and his wife. This is how I understand the issue, at its most simplistic level, added to which, of course, is the unfathomable resentment, almost everywhere, towards Camilla.

As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.

My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.
 
It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla

I find that very hard to believe.

Blame it on a woman who in no way or enterprise, has ever associated with this continent, let alone it's politics? That makes no sense. Suggesting an anti Camilla "campaign" is what influenced, by account, any federal transition would be not only rediculous, but totally unsubstantiated.

Camilla will never be of relevance within this governing constitution, and any endorsement of a Republic is quite simply, as you yourself expressed, a reflection of the fact our Head of State is not Australian and neither is her son. Camilla comes not into the equation.

Only in one's local doctor surgery is one likely to observe any discussion regarding the Duchess, and it's normally women of a maturing age, dissecting a two year old Women's Day article who are likey to be heard exchanging their character assassinations. Otherwise, she rarely get's a mention, let alone any real thought. Resentment? More to the point of a general uninterest.
 
Last edited:
As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.

My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.

Why try and perpetuate the stereotype that Australians are tabloid reading simpletons. Since the reintroduction of the republican push at the 2020 summit, the focus of Australia becoming a republic has solely been on Australia having a Head of State who actually resides in Australia. The media reports have not at all mentioned Camilla! Not once, nor Charles. The campaign for an Australian HoS treats Australians like they are intelligent individuals who realise that for Australia to become a republic is not a snub to the British royals. As far as history 'blaming' Camilla for Australia becoming a republic, rubbish! Historians will read the news articles of the day which don't focus on personalities, but on the issues of a country of migrants with no strong ties to the UK. Currently Australians don't have any 'favoured' status in the UK, young Australians need work permits to work there, EU members don't. There is no longer a 'favoured' state trade agreement between the Uk and Australia, not since the UK joined the EU.

Why isn't it fair to QEII that Australia becomes a republic in her reign. Why is Australia so important? During QEII's reign South Africa has become a republic despite the 'grand tour' done by George VI and family in 1947 on the advice of the Foreign Office to shore up support for the monarchy. Malta became a republic despite the fact that that as a young married woman Elizabeth lived there, so much for the sentimentality of the Maltese. They wanted their own Head of State. Zambia, Zimbabwe ( they were part of the 1947 tour) Ghana, all became republics in QEII's reign. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in her father's and they were all more important tradewise to the UK.

There are racist undertones here, Australia (and New Zealand) are predominately white so they are more important? The African and Caribbean countries that became republics in the queen's reign are not.

Personally I'm a status quoist, simply because I think there are far more important and pressing issues in Australia that the government should be spending their time and money on. Rural health, the Murray-Darling basin, programs for the disabled, mental health, all these issues are far more important and effect the lives of more Australians than who our HoS will be. I have no problems with it being Charles.
 
There can be no comparison, whatsoever, between Queen Victoria and our present monarch.

Queen Victoria did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve her prestigious place in the pantheon, whereas QEII had done absolutely everything!

Yes I was thinking along the terms of the length of their reign and what they have both accomplished . QV went into mourning for the rest of her reign after Albert died. I saw in a costume museum in London I think one of her (black of course) dressed, she was so tiny

Queen Elizabeth is in her '80's and I'm speechless at the pace she ( and the Duke) keep up
 
Personally I'm a status quoist, simply because I think there are far more important and pressing issues in Australia that the government should be spending their time and money on. Rural health, the Murray-Darling basin, programs for the disabled, mental health, all these issues are far more important and effect the lives of more Australians than who our HoS will be. I have no problems with it being Charles.

I so agree with you there yes we will become a Republic at some stage however like you I think there are many more important things to concentrate on just now
 
I so agree with you there yes we will become a Republic at some stage however like you I think there are many more important things to concentrate on just now

I agree with the two of you, but we now have a Labor Government, and turning us into a republic is important to them for some reason.
 
Along with New Zealand, but not Canada, and for the last time in Bermuda, we get this day off to mark the birth of a remarkable woman whose only fault it seems was producing her dysfunctional children, each of whom could in some unforeseen circumstances replace her as our head of state.

Leaving aside the commentary about the Queen, Canada doesn't get this day off but it does get a day off for her birthday.
 
That's pretty unfair. Yes, three of her children managed to get themselves into dysfunctional marriages, but I don't think any of them are dysfunctional individuals.
 
Unfair, indeed!

However, the journalist in question has a very high profile international c.v.,which is worrying.

More than that, I was shocked to hear on my local ABC radio station, (our prestigious national broadcaster) a whole day of parodies against Her Majest and her family, eg,

There was a 'interview' with HM, quite funny and good-hearted in its own way until it came to her plans for the day.


The impersonator said, over and again, that her 'son, and his wife..the, err, aah, eeek, Duchess of York (giggle, laugh) were having lunch with her. Time and again it was inferred that The
 
I seem to remember that when it was announced that she would be coming the new GG that she was a Republican and even hoped to be the last GG, implying that there would be a concerted effort to have Australia become a Republic during the next five years.

I do think that will happen - i.e. there will be another referendum within that time frame and I suspect that we will have a couple of plebiscites first - with the first one asking straight if the majority of Australians and a majority of states want to become a republic. That question would get a strong Yes vote I think and from their the government would then have to move forward towards us being a republic, possibly within 5 years or less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't seen much evidence (other than the BBC article) that Ms Bryce is for a republic. She hasn't aired her views on the matter much if at all, which, given her position, is probably a good thing.
 
Well looks like Australia may become a Republic.
 
You'll have to excuse me, but that does seem like quite the obvious statement..haha..;)
 
Wel yes I Was referring to Republicans having a Majority now or something to that affect
 
Wel yes I Was referring to Republicans having a Majority now or something to that affect


In 1999 the referendum was defeated not necessarily because most Australians didn't want a republic but because they didn't like the model on offer - the President being appointed by the Parliament.

What Australians want is a directly elected President.

Now that both the leader of the Opposition and the PM are Republicans (the new leader of the Opposition was in the forefront of the campaign for the Republic in 1999) it is expected that at some time in the next few years the process will begin.

I suspect a plebiscite within the next two years asking simply 'Do you want Australia to be a Republic?' If that gets a Yes vote from a majority of Australians and a majority of the states then the government will move forward with a model. If that simple question gets a No vote then it will be put on the backburner again (possibly for a very long time).

I would expect a Yes vote for the simple question and an overwhelming Yes vote at that.

The only problem for the Opposition leader is that quite a number of members of his party are still strong monarchists and he has to tread warily or possibly split the party and hand Labour the government for years.
 
Umfrage: Australier haben die Monarchie satt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Panorama

The above article, published in German on the Spiegel website, talks about australians being fed up with the Monarchy. According to a public opinion poll of the Herald/Nielsen-Institute 52 percent of all citizens decline the parlamentary monarchy. Only 40 percent support the Queen, der rest remains undecided. It also says that the general opinion and mood of the public might change once Prince Charles becomes King since he is not as well liked as his mother.
 
This issue had to raise it's ugly head again :nonono:
I think getting rid of the monarchy would be a waste of time and money and would serve absolutely no purpose.
They got a no vote from me last time and will this time. (JMO) :flowers:
 
I have made a few noises about supporting the move to a republic, but they can generally be attributed to lack of enthusiasm for William. It's remarkable how much more conservative I become when the local republicans try to force it onto me.

And don't fiddle with my flag, either!

:ausflag:
 
I hope there is another referendum. I will vote the same way i did before and vote REPUBLIC ALL THE WAY:)
 
How will Australia be a better country by becoming a republic?
 
Indeed, how would it not?

May it be asked what your opinion on the issue is, if you so feel like sharing?
 
If Australia does vote to become a republic, it is almost certain that it would be with an overwhelming consensus from the general public. This is a result of the process to pass a referendum in Australia. To do so you require the majority of people in the majority of the states to vote for it to pass. This is a lot more complicated then it sounds and has resulted in only minor referendums being passed in Australia. Keep in mind that in Australia it is compulsory to vote, therefore voter participation is considerably higher than many other countries in the OECD.

Even with John Howard unduly influencing the process last time, I doubt the vote would have been significantly different. I can't see this changing in the near future either without a comprehensive and long winded public consultaton process to determine which model is best to follow post Constitutional Monarchy.

FYI - I grew up in Australia, hence my interest in the topic.
 
The last vote was 45% Yes and 55% No mainly due to the model as it didn't involve a directly elected President. Most people that I know, and most polls on the issue indicate that a directly elected President would get up quite easily.

Sure only 8 referenda have been passed in the last 109 years since Federation but when they have been passed they have one thing in common - bipartisan support, which the next one will have.

I voted NO in 1999 but will probably vote YES next time due to my complete disregard for the young royals, William and Harry who seem to want to be 'normal' in which case why be given the position of Head of State. They need to be 'different' and be aware of it for me to see why they should have that position rather than me or someone else who is an Australian by birth or immigration but who definitely calls Australia home.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how the Australian people might feel if Charles & Camilla made a trip to Australia soon, in the aftermath of the fires. Do you think it is worth the PR effort?
 
Back
Top Bottom