Where Does Everyone See The Monarchy in 50 to 100 Years?

[Madame Royale]

Australians don't hate Prince Charles, they've just become, mostly, indifferent to him. He has very little relevance in Australia's life, after all. On the other hand, I like him and always have. Also, Australians, generally speaking, like the Queen very much. But Australia has little relevance to her, either, save for the historical context which I believe she values.

The republican movement in Australia should be seen as being pro-Australian, rather than anti-British. Consider: how do you think the English would feel if their Head of State were Australian, or Swiss, or American?

I'm sorry that the monarchy will be departing Australia's history pages in the near future, but I'm a realist and I know that it's what the majority of Australians want. And really, it has absolutely nothing to do with the late Diana and Camilla Parker-Bowles: this movement has been gathering pace for most of the C20. Ditto, New Zealand, I believe.

Polly

Wonderfully put, Polly

 

[Tzu An]

Belgium will cease to exist and fall apart.

But they make such excellent waffles!

 

[Avareenah]

I don't understand why it is that Australia hates Charles so much, or the rest of the royal family for that matter. This is what cheeses me off so much.

With respect, Tzu An, how can you simply announce that "Australia hates Charles" and the rest of the royal family? That's like me saying all Americans voted for G. W. Bush in the last election!

As has already been said, the majority of Australians have the utmost respect for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and this extends to this majority being happy to leave things as they are until her reign ends.

Then, there will likely be serious thought of Australia becoming a republic, not because of "hatred" for Charles or the royal family, but because many Australians desire complete independence from Britain. Simple as that.

 

[Avareenah]

Australians, generally speaking, like the Queen very much. But Australia has little relevance to her, either, save for the historical context which I believe she values.

With respect to you too, Polly, is it a fact that the Queen has said Australia has little relevance to her? I think not. She has visited Australia innumerable times since 1954 and has said it and its people hold a special place in her heart. I believe Prince Philip has been quoted as saying that the Queen will be sad if Australia becomes a republic in her lifetime, but that she will accept any decision on this made by the Australian people.

 

[Madame Royale]

In no direct relation to anyone's post...

An extract taken from HM the Queen's speech at the Adelaide Festival Hall, 27/02/2002.

"And in this Golden Jubilee year, I cannot but reflect on the extraordinary opportunity I have been given to serve the people of this great country. The way Australia evolves over the next fifty years is in your hands.

For myself, I thank all Australians, those here today and throughout the country, for your encouragement and support, your strength and wisdom, your honesty and good humour, all of which have sustained me and enriched my life. Whatever may lie ahead, I declare again here tonight that my admiration, affection and regard for the people of Australia will remain, as it has been over these past fifty years, constant, sure and true."

What can you say to such meanningful words?!..it's a real honour to have your Queen speak of you and your fellow countrymen and women so highly, I think.

I believe, for the best part, that its warmly reciprocated and it is for such reasons that Australia shall remain under her governance for if we chose to reform our current constitution, it would be the greatest disservice to a lady we, many of us, admire and respect.

Elizabeth II is well aware of our country's future intentions but she has accepted them as any intelligent and understanding person would.

 

[lise]

I don't understand why it is that Australia hates Charles so much, or the rest of the royal family for that matter. This is what cheeses me off so much.

Well this is a generalization and I don't think it's correct. I'm Australian and I don't hate Charles and I like Queen Elizabeth II. I just think the Australian head of state should be a true representive of Australia, which I think the Queen is not. I think she is a true representive of the UK.

 

[Polly]

With respect to you too, Polly, is it a fact that the Queen has said Australia has little relevance to her? I think not. She has visited Australia innumerable times since 1954 and has said it and its people hold a special place in her heart. I believe Prince Philip has been quoted as saying that the Queen will be sad if Australia becomes a republic in her lifetime, but that she will accept any decision on this made by the Australian people.

Her Majesty has already said that she doesn't anticipate returning to Australia again - not that I blame her. Our dear Queen is now an elderly woman and the trip, even in a customised plane, would obviously be a hardhsip for her. Fair 'nuff, too. And I don't think that she has visited us 'innumerable times'. Her Majesty has visited when there's been an important occasion, either here or in New Zealand, but she didn't visit when she was most wanted - at the celebrations for Australia's 200th birthday. 1988. The Prince of Wales and his wife, Diana, joined us on that occasion.

As for her accepting any decision made by the Australian people...well, of course she would, eminently sensible and practical woman that she is. It would upset her, that I do believe, because she has a definite and definable sense of historical purpose and record. But I don't believe that Australia, New Zealand or even Canada, for that matter, have anything like the pull on her that the UK has. And why would they? except for the fact that they are all currently members of her Dominions.

Let me give a simple and recent example. In the football World Cup held in Germany, Her Majesty invited England's team to Buckingham Palace to wish them well and all good fortune. She publicly announced her support for the team. Her Majesty, subsequently, offered no public support, whatsoever, to 'her' only other team in contention, i.e. Australia, despite the fact that Australia had to overcome a very odd and unfair selection process to even get there. We didn't even rate a mention, although given the circumstances, I thought that she might have, at least, sent her good wishes. Members of Australia's football team noted that fact, as did a few others, i.e. that our Head of State ignored us. Not remarkably, Queen Elizabeth doesn't relate to Australia, in any way except the historical context, in my opinion.

I do believe, too, that HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, has pronounced on the subject of Australia's becoming a republic. At least, I've read so. When the results of the referendum were transmitted to the Palace, he, allegedly said, 'are they mad?.

I think that Queen Elizabeth is a hard-working, honourable, and serious woman who has great respect for the dignity of the British Commonwealth. Nevertheless, she doesn't have the same affection and natural love for any of us that she has for Britain, and in this, who can blame her? She is British and that's where she lives and where her heart is.

As for her elegant speech, Madame Royale, it was just what Australia wanted to hear. However, Her Majesty doesn't write her own speeches, though she would hardly say anything which was out of character as Queen of Australia, of course.

In sum, I believe that Australia, New Zealand and Canada are important to her, but only insofar as she is strong proponent of the Commonwealth's ideals and would not welcome the departure of any of us from the 'family' in her lifetime.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'd keep her forever, if I could.

Polly

 

[Madame Royale]

As for her elegant speech, Madame Royale, it was just what Australia wanted to hear. However, Her Majesty doesn't write her own speeches, though she would hardly say anything which was out of character as Queen of Australia, of course.

Elegant or not, Polly, the Queen would not say something she did not feel or think to be true. Sure, it was drafted for her but Her Majesty's input would be nothing short of critical to the accuracy of her sentiments and how she wished them to be conveyed. I don't believe its primary purpose was for the benefit of the Australian people or what they wanted to hear, rather an aging Queen of Australia acknowledging the fondness and to the best part, pride, she feels at having served this distant continent the best way she has known how.

Not everything is lined with a diplomatic purpose, but this is just my take on it of course.

In regards to the Queen ever returning to our shores, I believe much talk of it has been discussed through the media and people such as ourselves, yet Elizabeth herself, is yet to make public such thought's (which isn't very likely). Our very own PM said during HM recent visit in March that he believes its quite likely that the Queen will return if the occasion ever calls for it. Whether or not it does, remains to be seen of course.

As you notably mentioned though, at an age beyond 80, I think its fair to say that such distances aren't seen as something particularly joyful, least of all comfortable (even if your boeing 747 jet is stripped internally and refurbished in a décor, 'fit for a Queen' shall we say?..hehe).

Please don't misunderstand me. I'd keep her forever, if I could.

As would we both

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Let me give a simple and recent example. In the football World Cup held in Germany, Her Majesty invited England's team to Buckingham Palace to wish them well and all good fortune. She publicly announced her support for the team. Her Majesty, subsequently, offered no public support, whatsoever, to 'her' only other team in contention, i.e. Australia, despite the fact that Australia had to overcome a very odd and unfair selection process to even get there. We didn't even rate a mention, although given the circumstances, I thought that she might have, at least, sent her good wishes. Members of Australia's football team noted that fact, as did a few others, i.e. that our Head of State ignored us. Not remarkably, Queen Elizabeth doesn't relate to Australia, in any way except the historical context, in my opinion.

That's a sad thing. I wasn't aware of it before. And we had examples at the World Cup when eg CP Maxima of the Netherlands managed to fit two countries into her one heart.

 

[ysbel]

Yes, I would say that's a valid example of why Australia would want an Australian head of state.

 

[timtonruben359]

Her Majesty has already said that she doesn't anticipate returning to Australia again - not that I blame her. Our dear Queen is now an elderly woman and the trip, even in a customised plane, would obviously be a hardhsip for her. Fair 'nuff, too. And I don't think that she has visited us 'innumerable times'. Her Majesty has visited when there's been an important occasion, either here or in New Zealand, but she didn't visit when she was most wanted - at the celebrations for Australia's 200th birthday. 1988. The Prince of Wales and his wife, Diana, joined us on that occasion.

There has been no clear statement from Her Majesty that her recent trip to Australia will be her last. We must also remember that the Queen doesn't visit her Commonwealth Realms on a whim or because she feels like stopping by, she goes when she's invited by the Government to do so. If the Government doesn't invite her to a certain event, she doesn't go.

I don't believe that the Queen sees her roles as Queen of Australia or Canada or New Zealand as less important than her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, many Governors-General and Prime Ministers have always stated how well informed she is about all her Realms. She takes all her roles very seriously.

That being said, I think the Queen understands that Australia will become a republic sooner rather than later, and I think she sees it as a natural progression of Australia's evolution as a society. But I do believe she holds Australia and Australians in high regard and until she is told otherwise, she is very much Queen of Australia just as much as she is Queen of the United Kingdom.

I know Her Majesty takes her role as Queen of Canada very seriously, she has been here 23 times in her Reign and seen literally every corner of this country. I doubt very much Canada will become a republic during her reign. I don't think Canadians are monarchists, but we're traditionalists in that we rarely modify our institutions. Many of our political traditions are British in origin, but the funny thing is Britian has phased out a lot of the traditions that Canada still use. One of the biggest arguments to keep the Monarchy is the fact that it is really one of the last remaing institutions that keeps us different than the United States.

I think down the road Canada will become a republic, but I honestly think like in Britian, there will be no serious debate until after the Queen's reign is over.

 

[Avareenah]

Her Majesty has already said that she doesn't anticipate returning to Australia again - not that I blame her. Our dear Queen is now an elderly woman and the trip, even in a customised plane, would obviously be a hardhsip for her. Fair 'nuff, too. And I don't think that she has visited us 'innumerable times'. Her Majesty has visited when there's been an important occasion, either here or in New Zealand, but she didn't visit when she was most wanted - at the celebrations for Australia's 200th birthday. 1988. The Prince of Wales and his wife, Diana, joined us on that occasion.
just what Australia wanted to hear. However, Her Majesty doesn't write her own speeches, though she would hardly say anything which was out of character as Queen of Australia, of course.
Polly

I will get the hard facts, but I think she's visited Australia some 18 times during her reign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She did come out in 1988 - to open the new Parliament House - on the anniversary of her grandfather opening the very first Parliament as Duke of Cornwall and York in 1901 and her father opening the first Parliament House as Duke of York, shortly after her birth. All three events happened on the 9th May in their respective years.

As she was wanted to open that building, representing our future in that year it was more than appropriate that the future of the monarchy represent her in January IMHO. She certainly wasn't going to come twice in the one year.

 

[Madame Royale]

I believe 18 times is the official count regarding visits made by the Queen of Australia.

In 1981 the Queen made two visits, but regarding the same tour I think as a visit to New Zealand is what devided the agenda

 

[Polly]

She did come out in 1988 - to open the new Parliament House - on the anniversary of her grandfather opening the very first Parliament as Duke of Cornwall and York in 1901 and her father opening the first Parliament House as Duke of York, shortly after her birth. All three events happened on the 9th May in their respective years.

As she was wanted to open that building, representing our future in that year it was more than appropriate that the future of the monarchy represent her in January IMHO. She certainly wasn't going to come twice in the one year.

I do know that she came during 1988, after all, I was there, in Canberra.

However, she was very much wanted in Sydney on January 26th.

I mean no criticism of Her Majesty at all. Heaven forfend! I must be her most ardent supporter in the land. I am just stating what I believe to be the case.

Polly

 

[Polly]

I should add, perhaps, that even I, an acknowledged admirer, was most uncomfortable with Her Majesty's ignoring Australia's soccer team, which had struggled so very hard to reach the pinnacle. Many others, all royalists, were unhappy with that, too.

The most charitable explanation is that her advisors let her down, but I would have hoped that our Queen knew enough to know that Australia's appearance had been such an enormous effort, and that she, consequently, was proud of us.

Polly

 

[Furienna]

Maybe she's not a sports fan? I know I'm not. And people who aren't big on sports won't know much about it. Still, it should have been her responsibility as Australia's head of state to honor their team.

This whole Australia issue makes me so glad, that our Swedish royal family don't have realms outside Sweden anymore. We even lost Norway, and the Norveigans are our neighbors.

 

[Madame Royale]

Maybe she's not a sports fan?

It has nothing to do whether the Queen is a sports fan or not, and I do concede that HM had an obligation to wish her Australian team a successful campaign, and this, she did not do much to my (and no doubt many's) dissapointment.

I mean no criticism of Her Majesty at all

Not at all, Polly

 

[Iluvbertie]

She rarely acknowledges and sports team except those of the home countries e.g. the English Rugby team had a reception of BP after winning the World Cup but the Australian team didn't - same with the cricket teams - English teams get reception at BP not Australian -even the text message she sent at the end of both the Rugby World Cups and Ashes clearly indicate that she is an English supporter and not an Australian one.

As for the attitude in Sydney on 26th January, 1988 I was at the celebrations that day and the most common comment I got about the Royals was how glad they were that Diana was there and no one mentioned the Queen or even Charles - it was all Diana, Diana, Diana!!! where I was.

 

[Avareenah]

I should add, perhaps, that even I, an acknowledged admirer, was most uncomfortable with Her Majesty's ignoring Australia's soccer team, which had struggled so very hard to reach the pinnacle. Many others, all royalists, were unhappy with that, too.

The most charitable explanation is that her advisors let her down, but I would have hoped that our Queen knew enough to know that Australia's appearance had been such an enormous effort, and that she, consequently, was proud of us.

Polly

I confess I don't know a thing about this. It's probably not popular to say, but sport is sport. Professional sports people earn colossal amounts of money and are treated like demi-gods by masses of fans. Do they really need the support of royalty when there are so many other worthy causes? Sorry -- let the hate mail begin!

 

[Sister Morphine]

I think the monarchy will still be around, but maybe in a more limited role. I don't know if the monarchy will ever cease to exist, but I don't know if it will ever revert to the way it used to be, several hundred years ago. There might be a considerable scaling back of the royal family, in terms of who gets titles and who's on the civil list.

 

[Madame Royale]

She rarely acknowledges and sports team except those of the home countries e.g. the English Rugby team had a reception of BP after winning the World Cup but the Australian team didn't - same with the cricket teams - English teams get reception at BP not Australian -even the text message she sent at the end of both the Rugby World Cups and Ashes clearly indicate that she is an English supporter and not an Australian one.

As for the attitude in Sydney on 26th January, 1988 I was at the celebrations that day and the most common comment I got about the Royals was how glad they were that Diana was there and no one mentioned the Queen or even Charles - it was all Diana, Diana, Diana!!! where I was.

I dont think anyone expects the Queen to support the Australian team(s) as she did/does the English but as Queen of Australia HM has an obligation and I feel that obligation was overlooked to be thruthful. It was not appropriate.

I maintain that the Queen has done the best she can (has known how), but even monarch's are prone to 'slip up's' and this was one as far as I'm concerned, even if it is not viewed as such by BP.

As for 1988, It comes as very little surprise that all and everyone was talking of Diana.

Youth, beauty and titles are an intoxicating mix afterall.

 

[Madame Royale]

I confess I don't know a thing about this. It's probably not popular to say, but sport is sport. Professional sports people earn colossal amounts of money and are treated like demi-gods by masses of fans. Do they really need the support of royalty when there are so many other worthy causes? Sorry -- let the hate mail begin!

We're not talking of financial contributions of a personal matter..hehe.. rather, a simple message that exhibits the Queen's support for this, her well documented sporting commonwealth nation

 

[Polly]

Well, she overlooked her Australian team and truly, I was peeved. Of course, I didn't expect the level of support which she proferred England, but I do know that the football community noticed that a simple 'good luck' was absent. As events transpired, Australia did very well in an area of sport which, hitherto, we've not really shined. However, Her Majesty would know, full well, that Australia is a most competitive, and successful sporting nation; in fact, one of the world's most successful. Her advisers might have anticipated this and realised that a 'well done' would have pleased many people.

Still, in a long reign in which she's done nearly everything with such dignity and professionalism I can overlook this. I mentioned this apparent shortcoming only to illustrate Her Majesty's sense of historical dedication to her many realms which is more important to her (I think) that the actuality.

Even so, I'm sad that her days as Queen of Australia may well be ending. Hopefully, all will hold firm while she's still with us.

Polly

 

[Furienna]

Yes, I think the queen had bad advisors on that one. Maybe a queen doesn't have to know everything, that goes on in the sports world, but she should have people, who keep up with things like that for her.

 

[blackdaisies]

i think the queen is beginning to get tired and might be thinking to put charles in charge soon. i know they are now lighting her area of the windsor castle where they never did before saying it will be lit as long as she is alive. it is a private agreement made from the queen with the castle, so the tourists can finally see where they live while it is dark. i guess it was never lit at night before.

she has canceled a few engagements also with a bad back. i hope she gets better, but in case she doesn't, and becomes less able to travel the way she does, she might pass the throne on. they all chip in and help with her duties now because she is getting up in age.

as far as how long they monarch will stand doing business the way it does by remaining part of the country's payroll maybe a different story. they do make more in royalties than they spend for the government, but people are complaining, so they may give in and let them go on their own. if they do this, then the royal family can then run for public offices, so i don't think they want to. of course they will win every election and it will look as if the royal family does rule england then. i don't think it would be a good idea to let them go out on their own because of the politics involved.

i kind of wish to see a new king and queen in my era, but long live the queen! lol. her mothe lived to be 101 or more. i can't remember, but i think elizabeth will live that long as well.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Feel the same way, I Want a King Charles III (GeorgeVII) But hope Her Majesty lives a long life. I Wish the same for the Duke as well.

 

[danilo nellas]

please do not preempt....we dont know what's going to happen...harry might have frailties..but who knows...............

 

[Next Star]

I think that the monarchy will not last with conditions going on with the royal family espically by Pince Charles marrying Camilla. I have noting against William but he should have to wait until Charles becomes king and his reign ends. Look at the past history of some other monarchies the late king Hussein of Jordan was much younger than William when he become king he was only 18 talking about growing up fast another king who was also 18 king Msawli of Swaziland those are just examples of those were very young and became monarch. And I believe that Australia and Canada will become republics after the reign of Elizabeth II as queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

A 1000 year old institution isn't going to come crashing down because of one marriage and a reign that won't last more than 10 years if it happens at all.