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

[Roslyn]

I'm afraid I am responsible for leading the thread off track. There is a specific thread to discuss Australia becoming a republic and concomitant issues like the flag, and this is not it.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I love our flag! The big dark blue space with the Southern Cross is what moves me most. Our night sky is magnificent. The union Jack is fine to indicate modern development and our peaceful, powerful structure of government and the seven pronged star has significance.
I agree with Cepe. I prefer the Monarchy. The Queen is predictable.

The only type of Republic I could live with would be a system where the Governor General is our Head of State. An appointed G.G. just the same as it is now. I would detest a 'President' and an elected Head of State. A democratically elected Prime Minister is the most powerful person for day to day concerns. I would want Australia to remain a member of the Commonwealth too. It is a strong, peaceful and historical alliance.

Our system of government has served us well - as have Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. Queen Elizabeth has a set role, we know it and it is clearly defined in the law.

 

[Dman]

All I know, I wouldn't be cross if The President decided to honor The Queen or Prince Philip.

 

[roseroyal]

Me neither!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If Australia were to hold a new referendum on becoming a republic or not, the monarchy will probably win with an even bigger majority than in 1999. The support for a republic has fallen in recent years, especially among the young.
I can understand those who want a Australian head of state, but it's not going to happen. Australia is not going to become a republic, either now or when The Queen dies.

 

[Lumutqueen]

.

We pay attention to it precisely because it is farcical. We don't want to be associated with something as absurd as this when we did not want it or agree to it in the first place. You are welcome to laugh at our stuffed cane toads or cockroach races, but we do not want to be ridiculed for something we did not want and do not embrace.

I was asking questions and trying to understand, there's simply no need for you to be rude and make assumptions that aren't true.

 

[Roslyn]

I was asking questions and trying to understand, there's simply no need for you to be rude and make assumptions that aren't true.

This is how things go off the track here and turn personal and nasty, and totally unnecessarily, resulting in the mods swooping in and sending us to the naughty corner.

You asked, "Why is it such a big deal? I'm not trying to criticise, just understand really. The honours systems re-installed appears to be pretty farsical from what has been described so why pay much attention to it?"

I answered with my honest reasons as to why I am paying attention to it, and added a bit of self-deprecating humour to lighten things up. I was not rude and I made no assumptions, whether true or otherwise. But perhaps you are not aware of the stuffed cane toads or Australia Day cockroach races and interpreted what I said to mean something that wasn't intended.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh Current Events 27: December 2014

The fact that you said "you are welcome to laugh" makes the assumption that a; I would laugh at your traditions and b; you appeared to be saying that by laughing I would be being rude. Neither of which are correct.

 

[tommy100]

Well clearly PM Abbot has failed to protect the Queen and the Monarchy from unnecessary criticism. Personally I would always think the spouse to a long serving head of state (bar dictators and their spouses) should be honoured in some way and I personally think Philip has done a fair bit for Australia. However given the large public backlash Abbot was silly to push ahead for such an honour as its led to a discussion over the monarchy again.

 

[Roslyn]

The fact that you said "you are welcome to laugh" makes the assumption that a; I would laugh at your traditions and b; you appeared to be saying that by laughing I would be being rude. Neither of which are correct.

Heck, these are very peculiar "traditions" and I would expect everyone to laugh at them. That was my point. They are funny, peculiar, things we do knowing they are ridiculous, and we expect to be laughed at for them, but not for cringe-worthy things that our PM does that we did not know about or approve. But enough about that misunderstanding, which was clearly caused by my failed attempt at humour. Time to move on.

 

[royal rob]

Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh Current Events 27: December 2014

I wouldn't be so sure of that it might seem that way now but if it came to a vote I think its different.
It's one thing to say no now but after weeks of TV ,radio, media etc not to mention actors etc working for republic I think it would happen

Not what I want but it will happen


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well clearly PM Abbot has failed to protect the Queen and the Monarchy from unnecessary criticism. Personally I would always think the spouse to a long serving head of state (bar dictators and their spouses) should be honoured in some way and I personally think Philip has done a fair bit for Australia. However given the large public backlash Abbot was silly to push ahead for such an honour as its led to a discussion over the monarchy again.

Could you please enumerate the 'fair bit' that Philip has done for Australia?


You can't say the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme as it didn't do that FOR AUSTRALIA but for young people everywhere.

As an Australian I can think of absolutely NOTHING that he has done for us. I actually can't think of anything The Queen has done either. They are British and not Australians and don't actually do anything for us, even on those rare visits they make.

A Head of State should live in the country of which they are the Head of State - not visit on occasions. Philip has been here 26 times - or less than once every two years of HM's reign and she has visited on even fewer occasions - about once every 5 years.

It is time for Australia to have a Head of State who can represent us on the international stage and not be the Head of State of a foreign country as well.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This should be discussed in this thread.

Well clearly PM Abbot has failed to protect the Queen and the Monarchy from unnecessary criticism. Personally I would always think the spouse to a long serving head of state (bar dictators and their spouses) should be honoured in some way and I personally think Philip has done a fair bit for Australia. However given the large public backlash Abbot was silly to push ahead for such an honour as its led to a discussion over the monarchy again.

I have followed Australian politics since 2006 and it is discussion about the monarchy constantly. Large parts of the media supports a republic, but if Australia were to hold a new referendum on becoming a republic or not, the monarchy will probably win with an even bigger majority than in 1999.

The support for a republic has fallen in recent years, especially among the young. I can understand those who want a Australian head of state, but it's not going to happen. Australia is not going to become a republic, either now or when The Queen dies.

Not what I want but it will happen.

No, it won't.

 

[royal rob]

I don't mean to be rude but you sure have a pretty strong view on this topic from someone that doesn't live here.
I can't see us having a vote anytime soon as there is more important things happening plus the cost.
But this country will become a republic I'm sad to say.

Only hope is if they send William out as GG ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Anyone who doesn't think Australia will become a republic at some point in the future isn't actually aware of the way Australia works as a nation.


A topic that isn't on the agenda now can be put back on the agenda very quickly and with the right approach will get done.


I do expect Australia to become a republic within a few years of the Queen's death as both sides of the debate have basically agreed to let it rest until then. When she dies the republicans will wait for a bit and then start campaigning again. Only this week the leader of the opposition made it a bit focus of his Australia Day address. It is ALP policy and many members of the current government are also republicans.


Support may be low at the moment but that is because it hasn't been part of the national discussion since the early 2000s but it will come again and will eventually get up - sooner rather than later in my opinion.


I too started on this board as a monarchist but it was this board and the people here that opened my eyes to the need for Australia to have their own Head of State who can actually represent us and not represent some other nation.

I don't mean to be rude but you sure have a pretty strong view on this topic from someone that doesn't live here.
I can't see us having a vote anytime soon as there is more important things happening plus the cost.
But this country will become a republic I'm sad to say.

Only hope is if they send William out as GG ��


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

If there was no way we would have accepted Charles in the 1970s and he was rejected there is no way that we would accept William now. He would be a boon to the republicans. The GG has to be an Australian now.

William even actively campaigned AGAINST Australia when we were trying to win the rights to host the World Cup - how could he then be the GG or ever be the Head of State of a country he has actively campaigned AGAINST in the past?

No, it won't.

Yes it will. We will be a republic one day so we can have our own Head of State - one who actually lives here and not on the other side of the world.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Only hope is if they send William out as GG.

No, it would have provided greater support for the republicans.

 

[Curryong]

As an Australian I broadly agree with that summation, taking into consideration how difficult it is to get a 'Yes' vote up for constitutional change in Australia

. However, Abbott's popularity has not improved in the polls and the back benchers are restless and grumbling. Should there be a change in the prime ministership in the next twelve months it is more likely than not that Malcom Turnbull will take it on.

Turnbull was a leading light on the republican side at the time of the 1990's referendum. Bill Shorten, leader of the ALP, is also an enthusiastic republican.

At the referendum on a republic last time the PM John Howard was a monarchist. If there is a referendum in a couple of years with bi-partisan support for a republic by the political leaders of the country, plus media support, this would certainly add an extra element.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If there is not way we would have accepted Charles in the 1970s and he was rejected there is no way that we would accept William now. He would be a boon to the republicans. The GG has to be an Australian now.

I agree with you in this.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

By David Flint from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
Sir Phil the Greek; the truth » The Spectator

Support for this has been falling dramatically since the landslide No vote in 1999. But where once the strongest opponents were the elderly , the young are challenging them, as the opinion poll on norepublic.com.au demonstrates.

 

[royal rob]

By David Flint from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

Sir Phil the Greek; the truth » The Spectator

Afraid he played into the labour party's hand and what's worse is that some of his party joined in. I don't agree with the knighthood but if that's the worse a prime minster can do I think we are in pretty good hands. When I think of what whitlam did and later Rudd and Julia Gillard did and what Andrews is doing to Victoria now I think it's a very very minor fault


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

The are now going to have a vote in the Liberal Party tomorrow (Monday 9.00 AEST) about whether to have a leadership 'spill'. It the vote is Yes then they will call for nominations for a new leader and if a new leader gets the votes we will have a new PM - and the catalyst for this vote - giving Philip a knighthood. The men calling for the spill vote have said that personally.

 

[Curryong]

It probably was the last straw, and an idiotic move in the circumstances, though Abbott obviously didn't see it that way.

However, if everything had been going swimmingly and Abbott and the Liberal Party had been maintaining a huge lead over the ALP in the polls, this knighthood would have been dismissed by all in the parliamentary Liberal party as just an eccentricity, an aberration.

The fact is that poll numbers have not been good for the Libs since that horror budget brought down by Joe Hockey, which hurt numerous sectors of the population.

Plus, I live in Melbourne, and the Herald Sun here, the Telegraph in Sydney and no doubt other Murdoch papers elsewhere, (newspapers read by a huge chunk of the population) have been gunning for Abbott and practically demanding his head on a platter for months (since the polls became disastrous; what a surprise!) That can hardly be blamed on Prince Philip.

 

[royal rob]

Yeah it was a horror budget but so is paying 60 billion a month interest on our loans and that debt was there when the libs came in.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

Yeah, but I do think that the Prince Philip thing has been used as a useful excuse by these back-benchers, who might otherwise balk at saying things like 'the public didn't like the budget and they've turned against us' and who certainly wouldn't state publicly 'Tony has turned out to be a dud, not able to turn those poll numbers around' and 'Oh, God we're panicking, got to do something or we'll turn out to be a one term government!' That's not something that backbenchers would articulate in public or even really to the Canberra press gallery.

In those terms Prince Philip's knighthood has turned into a nice 'publicly acceptable excuse for restlessness, when in fact this thing has been brewing since the Victorian election in November 2014.

 

[royal rob]

Hope we can move on anyway as there is so much work to be done to get this country moving


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[JessRulz]

Just a reminder that politics discussed here at TRF must relate directly with royal involvement. The leadership issues of the Australian Liberal Party does not fall under this scope.

If you wish to discuss Australian politics, do so via PM.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Royal Central @RoyalCentral · 24m 24 minutes ago
The Queen today Invested The Duke of Edinburgh with the Insignia of a Knight of the Order of Australia at Windsor Castle.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 53m 53 minutes ago
Australia's high commissioner, Alexander Downer, was present at the ceremony. Philip's knighthood prompted a political row in Australia.

"@BBCPeterHunt: The Queen gives her husband an Australian knighthood: "
https://twitter.com/britishroyals/status/590857808033099776

Philip is not my favorite person, but he has supported the Queen of Australia for over 63 years. He and other members of the royal family supports and do much for charity in Australia, and he has not asked to be knighted.

The palace should not have published pictures from this event, it only leads to more discussion and negativity.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He didn't have to accept the knighthood. People turn down honours all the time.

 

[Sunnystar]

He didn't have to accept the knighthood. People turn down honours all the time.

Well, yes, this is true. There must be more to the story of why he accepted when he's supposedly, in the past, declined. I suppose, though, at some point, she might have chosen to assert herself and remind him that SHE is The Queen and she can do as she pleases.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

He didn't have to accept the knighthood. People turn down honours all the time.

This is Tony Abbott's fault, it was he who asked the Queen to give him the Knighthood. And of course he accepted it. He didn't want to be rude.