View Full Version : Australians Want to Ditch Ties to British Monarchy

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 12:26 PM

Most Australians want to dump the British monarch as head of state and become a republic, an opinion poll showed Tuesday.

Fifty-two percent support a republic, 40 percent do not and eight percent are undecided, the Herald/Nielsen poll of 1,400 voters showed.

The poll comes as the government and official opposition are both led by republicans for the first time in the history of this former British colony.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who ousted royalist John Howard in elections last November, describes himself as "a lifelong republican".

The new leader of the opposition, former merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull who took over the Liberal Party from a royalist last week, led a push for a republic nearly 10 years ago.

A referendum on the issue was held in 1999 and republicans lost. Since then, the issue has been largely shelved while the popular Queen Elizabeth II remains on the throne.

But opinion polls have shown that if her heir-apparent, Prince Charles, is crowned, support for a republic with an Australian head of state would surge.

Turnbull said after his election as party leader that he would not push for a republic until the 82-year-old queen was no longer on the throne.

"We cannot have a successful referendum on the republic during the queen's reign," he said.

"In '99, I said if you vote no it means no for a long time, and the next chance will come after the queen's reign has ended.

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 01:02 PM
I agree with the point about "no means no for a long time". A vote for a republic would mean a yes forever, though. As a proud imperialist I love the idea of countries across the world still being (in theory) under our rule. I still regard the US as a colony. I think it is amazing that it was a no in '99. That many people who are happy for the monarch of another country to be their head of state shows how strong many feel ties to the old country are. That sort of loyaly has served the free world well in two world wars. If they now feel that they want to cut the apron strings then good luck to them but the figures are quite close so they need to (I think) get better figures than that.
When the people of Wales were given a referendum on whether to set up a Welsh Assembly, only about half the electorate turned out and even then it was close (nearly 50/50). So what was effectively just over a quarter of the population voted aye. So there is now a Welsh assembly. I am half Welsh and live in England. I was not entitled to a say in how the land of my fathers was run. Some foreigner just off the boat in Cardiff (who could probably speak neither English or Welsh) did get a say.
The same will happen in Australia. Many that live there have no ancestral ties to Britain.
Not sure what the figure of pro monarchists in Britain is. The current government has been nibbling away at the monarchy since '97. I am a staunch monarchist but do not recognise any monarch who has been anointed under a foreign religion (ie christianity). The last true king of England was Penda. If we could find his descendants then they should be allowed to rule with the help of a council of ministers.

a bit of a rant and wandering off topic but there you go.

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 02:05 PM
It's said that once Australia becomes a republic New Zealand will be soon to follow. :-O

Over my dead body!

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 07:19 PM
Hi maelstrom. Not sure whether "over my dead body" is part of your post or one of those things that people have on all their posts. I will be positive and go for the former.
I think it is great that some think that way. I do see your point about New Zealand following but perhaps there has been a bigger influx of Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Vietnamese etc into Australia than New Zealand so it may not be quite as clear cut. I would also like to think that if New Zealand want a republic then they would just go ahead and not wait for Australia.

There was a time when presidents were quite respectable people. Now they are of that horrible breed, professional politicians. The current despicable circus that is the US election system is surely enough to deter anyone from republicanism.
The word republic comes from the Latin respublica (of the people) so one might expect power to be vested in the people but it isn't and most politicians are too arrogant to listen to what the people want. Brown is a classic example.


Sunday, September 28th, 2008, 01:22 AM
There was a time when presidents were quite respectable people. Now they are of that horrible breed, professional politicians.
If you're talking about US presidents, then you're talking about a time that was very long ago.

But then, how respectable is it to rebel against your king?

Monday, October 13th, 2008, 09:16 AM
As a proud imperialist I love the idea of countries across the world still being (in theory) under our rule.....

.....the monarch of another country to be their head of stateBut this is a common misconception that has to be done away with; it's this misconception that's responsible for the republican views of many people.

Australia isn't under British rule, nor is the "British monarch" the "monarch of another country"; rather, Australia and Britain are both under the same monarch. This monarch is the monarch of Australia as much as of Britain.

Perhaps I'm nitpicking or slightly misrepresenting what you actually meant (because after all, the queen was born and bred on the island of Britain), but I just think it's important to point this out. In any case I agree with the basic point you're making :D

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 09:54 AM
My wish is that the US and the rest of the White Dominions reunite, but Britain can have a free association with both the Colonies and Europe, perhaps entering a kind of North Atlantic Confederacy with Iceland and the Faroes, along with Ireland of course, if not other Nordic nations. Imagine Canada and US reuniting, Oz and Kiwistan also combining. There would be three blocs of the Anglosphere. Yes, I would drop the ex-Mexican territories the way one would drop India and other non-White Commonwealth countries. I believe the US has a greater need and appropriateness to the Anglosphere than South Africa, which was originally a Portuguese colony before passing through the Dutch into the hands of the English. I'm fully English btw, so don't take me wrong. I see a clear distinction between England and Colonies, but a close relationship between the White Colonies and between London and Dublin.

Due to the primacy (15th century), extent of the settler framework and bigness of the population, British North America must be considered the leadership of the Colonial Anglosphere. New South Wales and the rest were founded as an alternative to the prevailing circumstances in the light of the Rebels. Penal transport was already a Yank phenomenon; consider Georgia.