Redd wrote:

I don't see how people can still care about or support monarchies. I'd be interested in someone explaining the reason they do, for me it's and archaic tradition that gives people privilege by birthright, a drain on taxpayers and without any positive use.

It's the will of the people, expressed through the people's representatives - the parliament. Are you saying the people are wrong?

We tried it the other way, being a republic after a bloody civil war, but that only lasted twelve years and is generally referred to as "the unhappy times" - LOL. Why would we want to go there again?

mariner

mariner wrote:

It's the will of the people, expressed through the people's representatives - the parliament. Are you saying the people are wrong?

We tried it the other way, being a republic after a bloody civil war, but that only lasted twelve years and is generally referred to as "the unhappy times" - LOL. Why would we want to go there again?

mariner

I'm not saying the people are wrong, I just don't get it, still don't, but I wanted to ask people who support the monarchy to explain why. I'm curious why people think the way they do.

Although people choosing bad leaders seems to be happening quite frequently now a days. So yes I think 'The People' can be wrong.

I don't even want to think about that day...

Redd wrote:

I don't see how people can still care about or support monarchies. I'd be interested in someone explaining the reason they do, for me it's and archaic tradition that gives people privilege by birthright, a drain on taxpayers and without any positive use.

According to opinion polling my opinions on this matter aligns with those of the largest segment of Australians - I don't care. This apathy means that myself and a (smallish) majority of Australians will vote to preserve the monarchy next time we have a referendum. Community support for a republic really isn't there at the moment, and this is why there hasn't been a major push for a second referendum since 2000 despite three of our last four Prime Ministers (Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull) all been committed supporters of a republic.

The main reason that apathy is translating into lukewarm support for the monarchy in Australia is, IMHO, two fold. The first is the argument that a constitutional upheaval thst will ensue will be phenomenally expensive and a time wasting distraction. After the 1988 Australia Act and subsequent abolition of appeals to the Privvy Council, Australia is fully self-governing and the Parliament in Westminster or British courts cannot interfere in our legislative or judicial affairs. Other than the emotional tug of an "Australian head of state" what precisely does a republic get us? So long as they leave us alone to do our own thing people here will tolerate them as the lazy option.

The second thing that counts against us becoming a republic is that the republic movement cannot agree on what they want. There are many models of a republic model from the US on the one hand to Germany on the other, and many more. Ask the republic movement what they see as our alternative governent and they all shuffle their feet, they can't agree. For this reason there isn't really a sustained drum beat for change in public discourse at the moment.

To summarise I don't so much as support the monarchy so much as tolerate them as the past of least reseistance. I definitely wish to avoid the crippiling upheaval and cost of a change of system here so will most likely always vote for the monarchy whenever the questions comes up here.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I wonder if Prince Charles will abdicate his position in favor of Prince William. Seems that in this day and age, the nation could and should be led by someone who has grown to see these changes first hand, not someone who was born in a different era. Charles could offer counsel in the background if needed.

stlgph wrote:

Yes, when the Queen passes, Charles will technically be King. But having him ultimately pass on the duties before a coronation and going straight to William would not surprise me in the least.

I think a lot of you aren't really getting the idea of how a monarchy works. Succession isn't defined by the whim of the public. The entire point of the monarchy is tradition; once you throw that away there's really no point in having it.

zckls04 wrote:

[I think a lot of you aren't really getting the idea of how a monarchy works. Succession isn't defined by the whim of the public. The entire point of the monarchy is tradition; once you throw that away there's really no point in having it.

Considering that the British monarch really is just a figurehead who holds next to no power and whose entire legacy can be put to a vote if there's overwhelming agreement that it has outlived its purpose, I'd say succession CAN be defined by the whim of the public.

Look at Thailand (another constitutional monarchy) where the current king does not really have the public's approval. The public can't stop the succession, but that doesn't mean they can't prefer someone else on the throne over the current one.

Traditions can be altered too in order to preserve them.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Considering that the British monarch really is just a figurehead who holds next to no power and whose entire legacy can be put to a vote if there's overwhelming agreement that it has outlived its purpose, I'd say succession CAN be defined by the whim of the public.

You could choose the monarch by a phone vote if you wanted, but what's the point? Why have a monarchy at all? Once you start throwing away 1000 years of tradition, you'll just be left with a few Sloane rangers in gaudy hats.

Either accept Charles as king or abolish the whole thing.

Look at Thailand (another constitutional monarchy) where the current king does not really have the public's approval. The public can't stop the succession, but that doesn't mean they can't prefer someone else on the throne over the current one.

Exactly, you can't stop the succession. You can have all the preferences you want, but that doesn't change who will become regent.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Redd wrote:

I don't see how people can still care about or support monarchies. I'd be interested in someone explaining the reason they do, for me it's and archaic tradition that gives people privilege by birthright, a drain on taxpayers and without any positive use.

According to opinion polling my opinions on this matter aligns with those of the largest segment of Australians - I don't care. This apathy means that myself and a (smallish) majority of Australians will vote to preserve the monarchy next time we have a referendum. Community support for a republic really isn't there at the moment, and this is why there hasn't been a major push for a second referendum since 2000 despite three of our last four Prime Ministers (Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull) all been committed supporters of a republic.

The main reason that apathy is translating into lukewarm support for the monarchy in Australia is, IMHO, two fold. The first is the argument that a constitutional upheaval thst will ensue will be phenomenally expensive and a time wasting distraction. After the 1988 Australia Act and subsequent abolition of appeals to the Privvy Council, Australia is fully self-governing and the Parliament in Westminster or British courts cannot interfere in our legislative or judicial affairs. Other than the emotional tug of an "Australian head of state" what precisely does a republic get us? So long as they leave us alone to do our own thing people here will tolerate them as the lazy option.

The second thing that counts against us becoming a republic is that the republic movement cannot agree on what they want. There are many models of a republic model from the US on the one hand to Germany on the other, and many more. Ask the republic movement what they see as our alternative governent and they all shuffle their feet, they can't agree. For this reason there isn't really a sustained drum beat for change in public discourse at the moment.

To summarise I don't so much as support the monarchy so much as tolerate them as the past of least reseistance. I definitely wish to avoid the crippiling upheaval and cost of a change of system here so will most likely always vote for the monarchy whenever the questions comes up here.

Very interesting approach. I hadn't thought of it in that way before.

I think a lot of people on this thread don't live in the UK. You probably don't realise how much tourism income the monarchy generates, how many tourists visit just to see places such as windsor castle etc. All these tourists have to have places to stay and eat, which creates jobs and income.

You can all say its a waste of time but infact its a money earner for the UK.

[quote="RyanairGuru"][/quote]

One of the main reasons why the 1999 referendum was voted down was with the proposed model for an Australian republic.

The proposal was for an Australian President to be voted into office by a parliamentary majority, the public would not have a say in who their President would be. If the proposed model was for a President to be elected into office by the public, the result may have been different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia ... ndum,_1999

As it turns out, we might have dodged a bullet, events post-1999 such as the goings on in Washington (especially with W & Trump), and current events in Turkey have reduced the appetite for a republic here, 'be careful what you wish for' comes into play here. Remember that a good number of Australians, especially since the 99 referendum are migrants from places where Presidential excess/misrule is the norm. Our current system does work well, in the main.

The only time that The Crown (through the Governor-General) has had to dismiss a government from office was in 1975, when the opposition-controlled Senate refused to pass budget bills that had been passed by the House of Reps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Aust ... nal_crisis

Not quite what happens when the Queen dies, but the Duke of Edinburgh will cease Royal duties at 96 years of age:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/buckingham- ... vyvqy.html

They are certainly handling this carefully - and probably an indication as to how they will handle future events.