I respect your position but view things differently. As non-Briton, I'd be glad to have some type of connection with the BRF- countries that have the Queen as head of state are part of something larger than each individual country, and the Queen is "[y]our own". She's just as much the Queen of Australia as she is the Queen of England.
I can understand that view and I have friends who share it -- as well as being relatively new to Australia compared to you who was born here, and thus may be viewed as not having a right to speak on the question of Australia and monarchy -- but don't you think the Australian-born and Australian-educated Governor-General is your local head of state?
If the GG is Head of State then what is the position of the Queen?
You can't have two Heads of State.
The GG does the job and should have the entire position and remove the Queen from the equation as she simply has no connection here.
This is a thread where we could say if we are monarchists or not.
Could you elaborate which are the advantages you have mentioned ?
I live in America so I don't really have an opinion in it.I am just interested in royals.
The GG is the official Head of State sanctioned by the Government of the day. The Queen is the formal Head of State by law. They're two different things.
As someone who voted against Australia becoming a republic in 1999 I find that my attitude to Australia remaining a monarchy has changed and now firmly support the ending of the monarchy - particularly as it is a foreign monarch -here.
I am happy to follow the BRF - IN BRITAIN - but would like to see the links between the Queen and Australia end so we can be fully represented by one of our own.
If somewhere back in history the British monarch had been forward thinking and had put their younger children on the throne as King/Queen of Australia and we now had our own monarch instead of one we share and one whose first loyalty will always be to another country I would have remained a monarchist for Australia - and I suspect the entire republican debate would not have really arisen here.
Do I think that monarchies will/should be restored in Europe - no - they are an outdated institution, particularly in democracies. Where the democracy developed to include them - fine, but to impose them on a democracy isn't going to happen.
I suppose this discussion should be held at the forum dedicated to UK.
The GG is the official Head of State sanctioned by the Government of the day. The Queen is the formal Head of State by law. They're two different things.
The Queen is a further check and balance in regards to the GG. Should the GG act not in the interest of the majority of Australians, and the PM for some reason doesn't have the power to stop that act, that is where the Queen could hypothetically come in.
Here we discuss if we are monarchists or not.
France had 5 Republics,two Empires...but Constitutional Monarchy could always be back.A French interested in Royalty is not monarchist maybe because in France there is a division between "legitimistes" and "orleanistes".
I am a royalist and love living in a kingdom.
The calendar is marked with all sorts of events at which my Queen represents the entirety of her people, regardless of their political opinion, she represents continuity, in a line stretching back over 1000 years.
Royal families echo our own family life, weddings, funerals, falls from grace, are all witnessed in a rolling panorama, and have been down the ages.
To me Britain would be imeasurably impoverished if it ever became a republic.
I am a royalist and love living in a kingdom.
The calendar is marked with all sorts of events at which my Queen represents the entirety of her people, regardless of their political opinion, she represents continuity, in a line stretching back over 1000 years.