Iluvbertie
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,460
- City
- Bathurst
- Country
- Australia
I do actually get this, but described this way it sounds a bit as though the monarch is not much more than the pampered pet of the government of the day. I think it's a bit sad, actually.
The Monarch is merely a symbol of the unbroken continuity of the state, and their only qualification is accident of birth. If the role of head of state really is merely symbolic and ceremonial, I think that the office is more appropriately held by someone who has had a long and distinguished career doing something constructive other than merely opening fetes and making small talk. Our Governors and Governors-General have opinions and have expressed them in the past and they can be known to anyone who cares to do the research, and I'm sure the same is true of, for example, Presidents of the United States. Why is it that members of the British Royal Family cannot have opinions and express them before they become monarch? Charles has done things with the intention of benefiting his country and future generations, and he has been criticised heavily for it. HM didn't have a chance to let us know what she thought before becoming Queen.
I suppose I'm just questioning the relevance of the whole system of monarchy as it affects me as an Australian. Why on earth should we bow to these people? William hasn't done anything to make me think he should ever be my Head of State. The fact he can read and write his own name and wave and shake hands and makes all the right noises and doesn't offend anyone just doesn't impress me.
You sound like you are starting to realise why many Australians are now republicans - because the royals have no relevance to us and can't say or do anything without the government's approval.
When I joined this board 2 and a half years ago I was as big a monarchist as you could find and now - bring on the republic!!!!