Support for monarchy steady

Despite the anti-monarchist sentiment expressed in barrel loads here, support for the British Monarchy remains high. The 80% support for the Monarchy now, and 70% when Charles becomes King is about the same as in this poll more than 18 months ago.

  • heck

    just goes to show that the british do not base their opinions and are brained washed.

    up the republic

  • Intelligence Insider

    Heck,
    You are clearly an uneducated buffoon. Please attend an adult literacy course before posting any more crap!
    God Save The Queen!

  • heck

    yea

    I have an idea for a head of state–let’s take a not very bright german family, inbreed them, and as long as they don’t become catholic let’s worship them. We can make sure that men have a preference over women for monarch-(and attack arab countries and kill people to liberate their women!) We can take the philanderers and make them head of our church. We can fund a lot of hangers on who are descended from court pimps and prostitutes.

    and if anyone questions this well they are “clearly an uneducated buffoon”. II are you sure you are note related to the royal family -I suspect your parents are cousins.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Intelligence Insider,
    You are clearly a literate buffoon. God Help The Queen!

  • joeCanuck

    Meanwhile, the Nepalese parliament just overwhelmingly voted to disband their monarchy.
    Strange old world.

  • Turgon

    heck and Pancho’s horse,
    Remember that the British (or at least the English) did once abolish their monarchy.

    I am in favour of the monarchy but do have considerable sympathy for the idea that there is “None King save Christ alone”. Remember not the Boyne but Naseby anyone? Be careful what you wish for.

  • Twinbrook resident

    the idea that anyone has a divine right to rule, to live lavishly and freely at the expense of those they are supposed to serve is the anti-thesis of democracy.
    If the British sorry English want a monarchy let them pay for it…

  • Michael Shilliday

    Twinbrook,

    1)The Monarchy hasn’t ruled by divine right for hundreds of years
    2)We do pay for it. 61p per year.

  • Michael Shilliday

    By we of course I mean British taxpayers.

  • iain

    is it per taxpayer or is it per person? also if its so little then you monarchists won’t mind paying for those republicans amongst us that don’t wish to pay for the monarchy at all.

  • Michael Shilliday

    Then you wont mind paying for roads I don’t use, hospitals and schools I’ll never visit…….and at the end of the slippery slope you’ll have started everywhere but the South East will be economic wastelands. If you want a republic vote for a party that will give you it.

  • Twinbrook resident

    if you`re going to post figures please ensure they`re correct.
    That figure of 61 pence has already been shown to have emanated from the one of the Royal PR`s and has no basis in fact..
    The true cost of the British Monarchy is hidden and is NEVER revealed…neither are the true taxes the British Queen pays and on what basis she taxed…
    As to divine right that was a figure of speech but still one based on reality…remember the British Queen still holds a position outside the realms of the law and the LIMITED British constitution…

  • lib2016

    It’s these petty little irritants which will set Ireland free so don’t knock them. The further England retreats into becoming a quiet little Ruritania the easier will be the break when it comes.

  • Michael Shilliday

    I can’t find any reference to those figures being discredited. The civil list is regularly published.

    Are your taxed published? Mine neither. Neither should they be.

  • Twinbrook resident

    when in a hole stop digging……………
    I don`t live lavishly at the expense of the British state and the British taxpayer…
    I, whether I like it or not pay taxes to the British state which are all above board and not hidden for the sake of “national security”….
    As to the British civil list….why are these Windsors better than any other British citizen and why are they afforded a place above the rest of the population and the British Queen afforded a place outside British law and the British constitution?

  • Michael Shilliday

    Mainly as all laws are in her name and my her authority, but clearly you’re not very familiar with such basics of the constitution you live under.

    And it’s not so much national security as personal privacy. The civil list is about 8 million a year, the rest of the Families income is private income they accrue as anyone else does.

  • Twinbrook resident

    but the the British Queens position is based on historical precendent and tradition and as such has no basis in the British written constitution unless you know better?
    Fact the British Queen holds a position outside the laws of the British state…has powers such as the right to annul parliament which make a laughing stock of the Glorious Revolution….

  • Jo

    Any criticism of the Royal Family on the basis of their cost is as well founded as the “taxpayers money” criticism of civil service costs – time and again these have been shown to represent a fraction of a fraction of a per cent of total public expenditure. Does it stop people shouting for cuts in the civil service? 🙂

    I think at present – and for the foreseeable future – the existence of the monarchy is a net benefit to the coffers of UK PLC. That is its guarantee of continuity.

    The recent BBC series on the Queen et al’s activities showed her to be a grumpy old woman made so by a combination of stultifying routine, mind numbing ceremony and deference and her own more than slightly autocratic and anal personality. Anyone else see the bit where she was looking at her watch to ensure the cannon salute (to her of course)was EXACTLY at 1pm?

  • Michael Shilliday

    You aren’t quite grasping this, laws are in her name, she couldn’t possibly be outside the law.

  • Twinbrook resident

    again you misrepresent the civil list…can you gave me one reason why this Windsor family should be treated better than any other British subject? Why are they afforded an exclusive, elitest position within British society? Why is this family given state hand outs, live at the states expense and have a position well above the standard of their British subjects?
    As to the civil list,the British Queen agreed to some of this out of her own fortune on the basis that HER taxes were Never open to the scrinity of the elected representatines the Bristish Electorate have voted in to represent them…

    Doesn`t sound like open democracy…

  • I suspect the British monarchy-as an institution is very secure.
    the institution and the Queen herself remains popular throughout the UK.
    Possibly the institution is least popular in Scotland, though Salmond has played a clever hand on this.
    Separating both issues of independence and the Crown.

  • Twinbrook resident

    again you refuse to answer any direct questions and try and fudge the subject and throw some personal abuse?
    You highlight clearly your ignorance of the British constitution, written and unwritten, the importance and the relevance of tradition and historical precendent and more importantly the LEGAL position of the reigning British Monarch.
    Maybe you should research a subject before you start a thread?
    And as to the Glorious Revolution…how has the British Monarch negated this?

  • DC

    The bizarre situation is this:

    England is oft cited as being post-Christian yet why do they hanker after the Monarchy?

    In a devious way we need only look back to the connivance of the Royals during the outbreak of World War II but then in contrast the Concord signed by Rome with Hitler was just as bad.

    A continuance of cutting both ways yet again.

    Personally, apart from foreign affairs and formation of links across the world to form British foreign policy, given Britain’s historic links, would losing the Monarchy really impact on British life other than to tidy up democratic rule?

  • The “cost” of the monarchy is discussed at some, albeit hostile length (but not fully quantified) at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon5.html

    Even the figures there are a couple of years out-of-date.

    The “61p” figure per person is pure drivel: a more realistic estimate might be around £180M in total. In any case, the British monarchy is by far the most expensive around.

    Since the monarchy is purely ceremonial, comparisons with (say) the US President do not work. Now, ex-Presidents are a different matter: the Toledo Blade extracted the figures from the Congressional Record — see http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/NEWS09/70107004

    This suggests a cost of less than $3M a year for the then-surviving four ex-Presidents.

  • Dewi

    Fascinating links Malcolm – Lizzie has 307 staff – that’s more than a decent sized factory.

  • Dave

    Had it been that the Glorious Revolution had never happened, then you would not be in a position to make comments?

    Go on think about?

  • Niall Gormley

    The reason the British aren’t breaking down the walls demanding a republic is that they already have one. A constitutional monarchy is 99 per cent republic with a veneer of monarchy. All of the defining traits of the change from absolute monarchy to democracy are present in both modern western republics and monarchies: separation of powers; democratically elected executives; independent judiciary, etc.
    Some of the most egalitarian countries in Europe (the Nordics) are constitutional monarchies. The reason why modern Europeans are so sanguine about monarchies is because they are irrelevant.
    The Aussies and Canadians have more reason to be upset as it isn’t even their monarchies.
    Still, I’m glad I live in a republic.

  • Dave @ 08:14 PM:

    Explain yourself.

    Are you arguing that, in some parallel universe, a failure in the late 17th century by the Whigs to hire foreign adventurist princelings would have frozen British political development for the next three centuries?

    More likely, surely, it would have fomented events witnessed in reality in the American Colonies and in the French Revolution.

    May I interpose a further thought: we do not need wholly to hypothesize. The interests of (a) the Hanoverians and (b) the Jacobites were, later, so parallel that (a, in the person of George III) paid (b, in the person Cardinal-King, Henry IX and I), a royal pension of £4,000 a year. ‘Nuff said.

  • ulsterfan

    The people of Britain wish to have a Monarchy.
    They are willing to pay for it by way of taxation and to grant to the Queen certain rights and privileges.
    These are not demanded by her but given by parliament acting on the will of the electorate.
    There are indeed many advantages to having a Monarchy bereft of real power but which acts in a constitutional manner.

  • Niall Gormley @ 08:26 PM:

    1. I largely concur.

    2. How long before the Australian referendum?

    3. Doncha just lurve these dumb colonials for getting a pointless figure-head of state for free?

  • ulsterfan @ 08:35 PM:

    … given by parliament acting on the will of the electorate.

    Hmm: please remind me of those recent occasions when Parliament has debated the position of the monarch.

  • Dewi

    Despite it’s lack of relevance etc. my belief is that the Monarchy is the stongest glue in the Union bond. Interesting to see that Queenie will be going to the South sometime soon. Perhaps she could wait till 2016?

  • ulsterfan

    Malcom R
    Parliament has not debated the issue to any great extent except approve the civil list which goes to show that they are more than happy with the present arrangement.

  • ulsterfan @ 09:05 PM:

    Ahem: not so. May I remind you of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 (a significant date: think Communist Manifesto)? This made even debating republican government for the UK punishable by life imprisonment. This piece of thought-control is still in force; so if this is my last posting, I’ll likely be in chokey.

    To answer my own question (which you couldn’t), Tony Benn attempted to introduce a Commonwealth of Britain Bill in the Commons, back in 1991. It was denied a debate.

    When the Labour Government took office in 1997, there was considerable backbench pressure for a debate (not only from Labour, but from Plaid Cymru and the odd Scots Nat). Tony Blair doggedly and successfully blocked this (though his lady wife was allegedly none too happy). I have heard it implied that the representation of the Blairs in the film, The Queen, is not completely divorced from reality.

    And I hope that this time I managed my tags correctly.

  • McKelvey

    The problem isn’t the monarchy, it’s the billions in assets which they are allowed to possess which is obscene, especially in a country with such serious social problems.

  • ulsterfan

    Malcolm R what you say is undoubtedly true but in the case of Tony Benn he was always viewed as a politician who was willing to plough his own furrow and did not have the support to effectively introduce his Bill into Parliament.
    I might be wrong as it was such a long time ago but I am sure you can keep me right.
    Republicanism is such a strong emotive/political force and yet it does not have a following in UK.
    What can the reason be other than people can not give it allegiance.
    The ideal time was after the first WW1 but nothing came of the little effort made at that time.
    There is no chance now .

  • brendan
  • Billy

    Malcolm

    “How long before the Australian referendum?”

    It is not on the immediate list of the new govt. However, it is thought that it will happen in 2009 and no later than 2010.

    The last referendum was cleverly manipulated by arch monarchist John Howard – there was a clear majority in favour of a Republic. Knowing this, Howard phrased the proposition so that any potential President would be elected by Parliament (i.e. his party) and not by the people. He knew that people would rather have
    the Queen for another few years that a President that they weren’t allowed to vote for.

    So, the last referendum actually gave the impression that the majority in Australia wanted to retain the Queen as Head of State – they didn’t – she was just the least worst option at that time.

    The Pro Monarchy press trumpet the claim that the pro Republican vote in Austalia has declined since then. Some opinion polls do indeed show that but they also show that the pro Monarchy vote has declined as much if not more.

    Having lived here for 2.5 years, it is my impression that most Australians do want a Republic (especially the younger ones). The Pro Monarchists tend to be older ones whose numbers are declining.

    One only has to see the Commonwealth games in 2006 when the Australian anthem was (quite rightly) played in preference to GSTQ. Despite Howards pitiful complaints about it, the vast majority of the Australian public agreed with it.

    The current govt (with a large majority) is unashamedly pro Republican. The newly elected deputy leader of the opposition (a very wealthy and influential character) is actually chairman of the Australian Republic movement.

    I have no doubt that Kevin Rudd will schedule a referendum for 2009 or 2010 at the latest. I equally have no doubt that the result will see Australia (rightly) become a Republic.

  • brendan @ 10:18 PM:

    Phew! Thanks, Brendan, that’s a relief. I can sleep soundly tonight.

    By the way, has anyone else had a chortle at the Benbecula cylinder? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7164220.stm ]

    Am I the only one to think Whisky Galore (with or without the exclamation point, for which detail see my blog)?

  • Dewi

    “Benbecula cylinder?” – I often wondered what happened to Vostok 1.

  • Billy @ 10:38 PM:

    And thanks for that lucid appreciation, too.

    It reminds me that I was unnecessarily and ignorantly offensive, just on Friday evening, to a guy. I was doing my regular bit about the New Year Honours (mainly on the line that the Order of the British Empire amounted to the Falklands and sweet Rockall). Only half-way through my diatribe, noticing his face, did the obvious strike: he had a gong himself. Aw, shucks.

    However, I still find the Dame Nuala thing too good to be true.

  • Twinbrook resident

    ulster fan if you`re going speak on behalf of the Majority who willing support financially the Windsors please atleast gave some links to the mountain of information or sources which support your beliefs!!!!!
    Also does “rights and privileges” include the ability to operate and work outside British Law and the British Constitution, points I`m waiting on the starter of this thread to reply too!
    Be kind enough ulsterfan to explain to us what these rights and privileges are? When the British Parliament debated or passed them?
    And maybe you can answer why the ex-german Windsor family should be treated better than the ordinary British citizen?

  • Intelligence Insider

    twinbrook resident,
    I suggest you look at the “Bill of Rights”. Law, prior to this, was in the hands of the monarch.That changed thanks to William of Orange. I take it you have the same thoughts on Mr Ratzinger, head of state of the vatican city? It doesn’t seem to be a republic either!

  • Michael Shilliday

    Twinbrook, you’re having great trouble grasping that the Law is in the Queen’s name, therefore she cannot be outside the law, she is the law. She is also a central tenant to the British Constitution, and therefore cannot operate outside it.

  • Harry Flashman

    Ah yes Billy, the old “Australians really wanted a republic that’s why they voted to keep the Queen routine”, you gotta love it, Queenie won it, you can claim to know the minds of the voters all you want and your opinions and five dollars will buy you a beer in Sydney’s King’s Cross but the fact remains the people spoke and the Queen is the democratically mandated head of state of the Australian Federation.

    Maybe – maybe – you’ll win it next time around (like the EU, Aussie republicans never accept the results of popular referendums, instead insisting they be taken again and again until they get the “right” result), but until such times Her Britannic Majesty, by grace of God defender of the Faith, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is the popularly nominated head of state of Australia and any Australian democrat should accept the result and pay the woman the due respect she is entitled to as head of state, then they can go home and chew on their pillows!

  • Intelligence Insider @ 12:40 AM:

    The 1689 Bill of Rights is on-line at (for example) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm and (with a short commentary) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A700372

    Either source deserves study before too much comment.

    It was a document for and of its time, but it is not some great statement of freedoms: indeed, it is hard to find any declaration of personal rights therein. It is essentially a declaration of the powers of Parliament (at the expense of the monarchy) and of Protestants (at the expense of the detested and disfranchised papists). To assert the Bill of Rights is to defend penal laws. And, certainly, I do not see how all this is “thanks to William of Orange”: it was a diktat offered by the Whigs to William & Mary on a “take it or leave it basis”.

    As Michael Shilliday @ 02:01 AM and elsewhere indicates, as things stand, the British remain subjects (consider the word carefully), and definitively not citizens.

    In passing, I suggest it is also true that Australia technically does not yet own the full rights (as ordained in 1689) of the British parliament. For example, the Monarch in theory retains the power to over-ride the decisions of the Australian Parliament and Governor-General, and could maintain in office an administration which had lost the confidence of the Australian Parliament. Equally, the Queen-in-Australia (i.e. rubber-stamping the say-so of the Australian Prime Minister) can sack the Governor-General at will or whim. As recently as 1986 the monarch had no obligation to act on the wishes of the individual Australian states (and, let it be remembered, the Queen is Queen of the individual states as well as of Australia as an entity).

    It is hard to see what benefits Australians receive from such a strange arrangement, and at a cost of some A$12-15M a year.

  • The Dubliner

    Malcolm, some folks want everything in writing except their fundamental rights.

  • Billy

    Harry

    What a load of nonsense!

    I deal in facts. I am not disputing the fact that the Aussies voted to keep the Queen last time round. However, having lived here and worked and socialised with the Aussies for some years, I found out exactly what had occurred.

    If you bother to check out any authoritative sources on the web, you’ll find that my comments echo most informed analysis.

    As to what will happen in the future, no-one can be 100% sure. I didn’t claim to know the minds of all Aussies but I’m happy to say that I’m certainly more knowledgable than you (I guess you get your info from Aussies who are currently living and working in the UK). I get mine from the “horse’s mouth”.

    Your patronising comment really shows why so many Australians are so eager to cut the links with the Monarchy. In case you hadn’t noticed, the British “Empire” disappeared a long time ago.

    I never claimed to know the minds of all Australians. However, if you care to peruse the bookies odds on Australia becoming a Republic under the current govt, you’ll find that they would all agree with my prediction.

    If they’re that bothered about the Queen, why did they refuse to play GSTQ at the opening of the Commonwealth games? The only public outcry about it was when Howard tried to intervene and change it – even he had the wit to crawl away with a bloody nose when he realised that the vast majority of public opinion was against him.

    It may offend your preconceptions but, after living and working here, I can tell you that the Queen doesn’t feature on people’s major concerns.

    Australia is a strong vibrant country in it’s own right. It doesn’t need a foreign Head of State who has no meaning to the majority of people (especially the younger ones).

    If you want to spend a few years living here, working and socialising with the real Australians, then your opinion might be worth something.

    However, until you do so, I’ll put you down as another Brit who can’t see that you don’t have an Empire any more and prefers to believe what makes them happy even if the facts say otherwise.

  • Harry Flashman

    Billy, I want to save you embarrassing yourself further as you rant about what I may or may not know about Australia. So to stop you making a bigger eejit of yourself than you already have as you waffle on about your vast knowledge of Australian voters’ intentions from a couple of years working in Oz, place your cursor over my name at the bottom of my post. The one in red, see that? Good, now look down at the bottom of your screen, you’ll see my email address appears, have a look at it and tell me again how magnificently endowed with greater knowledge about things Australian you are compared to me.

    *I deal in facts.*

    You do not, you deal in supposition based on your own political prejudices, backed up by pointy headed political hacks in the liberal media who called the referendum wrong.

    I deal in facts; a republic was offered to the Australian electorate, it was debated in a free and fair way and after considering the question the Australian electorate in their wisdom rejected the republic and chose to retain the Queen as head of state. That is a fact, a simple undeniable fact. The whys and wherefores of why the millions of Australian voters made their decision is a matter of conjecture but the FACT remains the republic was rejected, plain and simple.

    “Advance Australia Fair” is the national anthem of Australia, Queen Elizabeth is the democratically mandated head of state of Australia, she would have absolutely no problem with the Australian national anthem being used while she is in Australia, the only person getting hot and bothered about it appears to be you, years after the issue was settled.

    Maybe in the bars where you hang out Irish Aussies with their well tended chips on their shoulders still cry wistfully into their VB’s about how they want a republic, the vast majority of normal Australians couldn’t give a four XXX about the issue. It may surprise you but the new Australians of Asian descent are certainly not as hot and bothered about the issue as you may think. They left Islamic Republics and Peoples’ Republics and Workers’ Socialist Republics and any other ghastly form of government in the absolute knowledge of who was the head of state in Australia. For many of them the idea of emigrating to a tolerant, British style, parliamentary democracy was the prime motivating reason for their leaving the hellholes they left behind, don’t kid yourself that they are all falling over themselves to see Australia become a republic.

    The people of Oz ain’t just whiney Micks anymore, mate.

  • Twinbrook resident

    can you show where the British Monarch IS the central tenet in the British Constitution, even point to any document where this is stated?
    I`m having great difficulity with your FUDGING, please try and answer without the need to post nothing but YOUR speculations which seem to be based only in your own imagination and not in any fact…
    Search as I have, I haven`t yet found ONE thing that implies nevermind supports your belief that the reigning British Monarch is the central tenet of the British constitution!!!!!
    Also as you content the Law is in the name of the Queen so doesn`t this negate The Glorious Revolution and as you rightly know…the British Monarch holds a position of power which is outside the limits of the law….for instance…the reigning Monarch cannot be summoned to testify or serve in ANY court of Law!
    Just to recap on an earlier point…why should this Ex-German family the Windsors and all their hanger-ons be supported lavishly at the expence of the British taxpayer and have a lifestyle most can only dream off?
    Why do hardworking British taxpayers have to pay for all the extended Windsor clan and again why is the subject of the reigning Monarchs taxes hidden behind the guise of national security….when the likes of major multi-national companies and the likes of for example Richard Bransons tax returns if not open to scrutiny atleast the British nation knows exactly on what they are being taxed…

  • DK

    Surely paying taxes for the monarchy is a bit like paying your licence fee in order to watch your favourite soap opera…

  • páid

    Good on yer ‘Arry.

    You play long enough, you get presented with the odd open goal 😉

  • Todd

    Harry F,

    The only whiney F*cks in Australia are the pommes every time they get beaten at cricket…

    It is a great relief to Australia that Howard a Toad of a man is finally gone.

    The one thing you are correct about is that the younger immigrant population do not give a damn about a republic/monarachy. The older Brit aligned popultaion do though and that along with Howards manipulation won the vote the last time.

  • Irish In Sydney

    Billy
    ‘I have no doubt that Kevin Rudd will schedule a referendum for 2009 or 2010 at the latest’

    Hmmm… Although his party is committed to Australia becoming a Republic Rudd has previously stated that a referendum would not be on the radar of his first term in power so it is unlikely that this will happen by 2010 at the latest. However Rudd, just like any other politician, will flip-flop if he senses a vote-winner. But, as Harry and Todd have stated, this topic is not at the fore-front of people’s thoughts – compared to interest rates, the environment and the war in Iraq, Australia becoming a republic just doesn’t matter that much to the Australian electorate.

    Its unlikely that Rudd will want to get bogged down and distracted by constitutional matters in his first term – he’s gonna have enough on his hands paying for all the pork-barrel election promises without buggering up the economy!

  • Harry Flashman

    *he’s gonna have enough on his hands paying for all the pork-barrel election promises without buggering up the economy!*

    What are the odds he’ll have well and truly buggered it up by the middle of his term of office?

  • Animus

    I don’t object to the monarchy for the money that’s spent on them but because they are so outdated and so grim as a family.

    I expected this thread to be pretty funny and Michael Shilliday has not let us down, with his typical forelock-tugging defence of the monarchy. Do your knees ever get tired?

  • willowfield

    Twinbrook

    again you misrepresent the civil list…can you gave me one reason why this Windsor family should be treated better than any other British subject? Why are they afforded an exclusive, elitest position within British society? Why is this family given state hand outs, live at the states expense and have a position well above the standard of their British subjects?

    Quite simply, because the British people wish to maintain a monarchy rather than have a republic. Should that ever change, then the monarchy will be abolished, but there is no demand for it: people like it. Makes the UK distinctive.

  • Irish Aussie

    “” The last referendum was cleverly manipulated by arch monarchist John Howard – there was a clear majority in favour of a Republic. Knowing this, Howard phrased the proposition so that any potential President would be elected by Parliament (i.e. his party) and not by the people. He knew that people would rather have
    the Queen for another few years that a President that they weren’t allowed to vote for.”

    I hate to contradict you billy but this isn’t quite right.
    What happened was that instead of going to the people with the straight question, do you want an Australian as head of state, yes or no, and vote on the model later.
    Howard insisted that the Republicans put up a model knowing full well that this would split the Republican movement.

    The irony of ironies is that a lot people in Australia were so taken with Mary Robinson espesically Irish Australians that they wanted the same for Australia ie a directly elected President.

    It wasn’t considered until she turned up, but if we go down that route it throws up the question of dual mandates who has the power the Prime Minster or the President. I know it works in Ireland but I can’t see it working in Australia the tories here are feral.

    The preferred model is a President elected by 75% of parliment which would require cross party support and therefore should be impartial with no dual mandate issues.

    So having spilt the Republican movement the tories then unleashed a vicious smear and fear campaign (I was actually embarrassed for the Queen) coupled with a if you don’t care or don’t know vote No campaign.

    After all that they just fell over the line 54/46 and left a bad taste in everyones mouth Monarchist and Republican alike.

    The Republic is not on the agenda for the first term of the Rudd Govt in part because of how nasty the last one was, but don’t worry our day is fast approaching.

    I predict that Australia will be a Republic by 2016 about the same time that Nationalists take control in the North, a double celebration.

  • eranu

    the high support for the monarchy reflects what royal families are in the 21st century. they are national decoration, an ornate and grand institution at the centre of the country all the way back through history. living history if you like. its the colour and fuss of royal occasions that people like. as far as laws go, theres no difference in democracies that are republics or have a monarchy. this is the 21st century not the dark ages.. the only difference is a monarchy has an asset for people to look at and a republic doesnt.
    imagine the queen arriving in her gold leaf horse drawn carriage with the household (think thats the name) cavalry on horse back in full dress. now imagine a republic where a black merc pulls up and some guy in a marks and sparks suit gets out, boring!
    the country is richer for having a monarchy and all the grandness that goes with it.

  • eranu @ 11:23 AM:

    national decoration, an ornate and grand institution at the centre of the country all the way back through history. living history if you like

    Two thoughts:

    1. Many of these flummeries date back, oh, all of twenty or thirty years. Even the “ancient” Coronation Service had to be substantially re-invented in 1838 and 1902. So, I am reminded of
    (a) Ian Fleming:

    Once is happenstance. Twice is circumstance. Three times is enemy action.

    (b) The Bo’ness Rebels Song Book adaptation, in 1960, of Marie’s Wedding:

    Sing a sang o’ tax and woe,
    Empty pouchies in a row.
    The Chancellor’s collectin’ dough,
    A’ fer Maggie’s wedding.

    2. Look, on your keyboard, left-hand side, there’s this key. It’s marked “Shift” or has an upwards arrow. Why not find out what it does?

  • eranu

    malcolm, have to admire the detail in your posts but i thought it was ‘three times a lady’ or something ?? 🙂
    i have 2 of those arrow keys. not sure what they do. dont think i’ll bother with them…

    im sure royal events have changed. would you agree that it would be swapping grandness for blandness to have a man in a grey suit as head of state?