King Charles: Australia's Future as a Republic Rests with Its People

[Social Media]

 

King Charles has reiterated that it is up to the people of Australia to decide whether the country remains a constitutional monarchy or becomes a republic. Ahead of the King's visit to Australia next week, the Australian Republic Movement received a letter from Buckingham Palace officials, clarifying the King’s position on this issue.

 

The correspondence, first reported by the *Daily Mail*, emphasized that "whether Australia becomes a republic" is a decision that lies with the Australian public. While King Charles and Queen Camilla are scheduled for several official events during their visit, including in Sydney and Canberra, the future of the monarchy in Australia is expected to be a recurring topic.

 

The letter sent by the palace restates the long-held stance of the monarchy rather than marking any shift in policy. As a constitutional monarch, King Charles operates based on the advice of his ministers, and decisions about Australia's political future, including its head of state, fall entirely within the purview of its citizens. "His Majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his Ministers, and whether Australia becomes a republic is therefore a matter for the Australian public to decide," the letter explains.

 

This exchange between the palace and the Australian Republic Movement was described as amicable. The movement had previously requested a meeting with the King during his visit, as they continue to push for Australia to elect its own head of state. "While we respect the role the royals have played in the nation to date, it’s time for Australia to elect a local to serve as our head of state. Someone who can work for Australia full time," said Isaac Jeffrey, a spokesperson for the movement. The campaign, which commends King Charles personally, is opposed to the monarchy's institutional role in Australia.

 

A referendum held in 1999 saw Australians vote to retain the constitutional monarchy. However, with the current government indicating earlier this year that another referendum is "not a priority," the push for a republic remains in limbo. Pro-republic advocates argue that the role of head of state should be filled by someone elected by Australians, not by a monarch from overseas.

 

The visit to Australia, scheduled from October 18 to 26, marks King Charles's most significant international trip since his cancer diagnosis earlier this year. His previous international engagement was in France for D-Day commemorations. While his treatment is expected to be paused during his stay in Australia, he is set to participate in various activities, including reviewing the Australian naval fleet in Sydney harbor, supporting environmental initiatives, and meeting with cancer experts. Following his time in Australia, the King will also attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa.

 

Although the subject of a republic may dominate some public discourse during the visit, King Charles's correspondence reflects his respect for the Australian people's right to choose their future. "The King appreciated that you took the time to write and asked me to reply on his behalf," reads the palace's letter. It further mentions the King and Queen’s "deep love and affection" for Australia, with appreciation expressed for the thoughtfulness of the republic campaigners' letter.

As Australia weighs its future, King Charles's stance remains clear: the question of the nation's constitutional future is a decision only Australians can make.

 

Based on a report from BBC 2024-10-15

 

 

 

[jippytum]

The question of Australia  as a republic has aways depended on a mandate from its citizens. 

Nothing new here. 

Until there is a referendum the politicians in power should at the very least have the decency to shake the hand of our visiting King. 

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

King Charles has reiterated that it is up to the people of Australia to decide whether the country remains a constitutional monarchy or becomes a republic

 

Of course, regardless of what he thinks, he  can hardly say anything else. 

[damian]

We can rely on the feral left to get on board the bandwagon and embarrass Australians during the visit with their 'farewell banners' waved in the face of the visiting royals along with boos and chants of 'royals out'. 

 

Palestinian and aboriginal flags will also be displayed but are of course mandatory at every protest. 

 

Good response from the Palace. Sort of puts water on ARM's fire starting. 

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, damian said:

We can rely on the feral left to get on board the bandwagon and embarrass Australians during the visit with their 'farewell banners' waved in the face of the visiting royals along with boos and chants of 'royals out'. 

 

Palestinian and aboriginal flags will also be displayed but are of course mandatory at every protest. 

 

Good response from the Palace. Sort of puts water on ARM's fire starting. 

 

Likewise, you can rely upon the docile, pliant, cap doffing, servile right to maintain the undemocratic status quo. 

[mfd101]

Yawn, seen it all before, including the Palace's standard lines.

 

Still be the same in 50 years when George succeeds William ...

[Brian Hull]

Bring on the Referendum. These is no place in the governing of Australia for its citizens to show deference to a foreign head of state. Bring on The Republic of Australia.

[JonnyF]

Aussies should be careful what they wish for. 

 

They've made enough mistakes the last couple of decades, they should refrain from making any more. 

[AndreasHG]

45 minutes ago, Brian Hull said:

Bring on the Referendum

 

35 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Aussies should be careful what they wish for. 

 

Australians have no word in who the monarch is, but bear also in mind that Australia does not pay a cent for the maintenance or security of the Sovereign.

Only when the Sovereign visits Australia at the request of the Australian government are expenses incurred, and those expenses depend on the planned itinerary, which may be the shortest and simplest to keep expenses down.

 

Let the Aussies enjoy their free-of-charge head of state, and the Brits happily foot the bill.

They (the Brits) are ready to do anything to upkeep pomp and circumstance, and Aussies are practical people who know how to get straight to the point.

 

[PETERTHEEATER]

That's what a Timbertop education gets you.

Mine's a VB Blue,......and none of y' stubbies.

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

They (the Brits) are ready to do anything to upkeep pomp and circumstance, and Aussies are practical people who know how to get straight to the point.

 

We are not all snivelling, boot licking sheep. Whilst still a minority, more and more brits are questioning why we have this grotesque and utterly disfunctional family as our unelected and unaccountable head of state. 

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

We are not all snivelling, boot licking sheep. Whilst still a minority, more and more brits are questioning why we have this grotesque and utterly disfunctional family as our unelected and unaccountable head of state. 

 

Mainly immigrants and self loathing lefties. 

 

Real Brits still love the monarchy.

 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Mainly immigrants and self loathing lefties. 

 

Real Brits still love the monarchy.

 

 

Do you have evidence to back up that claim or is it all just wishful thinking on your part? 

[Red Forever]

17 hours ago, damian said:

We can rely on the feral left to get on board the bandwagon and embarrass Australians during the visit with their 'farewell banners' waved in the face of the visiting royals along with boos and chants of 'royals out'. 

 

Palestinian and aboriginal flags will also be displayed but are of course mandatory at every protest. 

 

Good response from the Palace. Sort of puts water on ARM's fire starting. 

"aboriginal flags will also be displayed".

How very dare they!!!!

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Likewise, you can rely upon the docile, pliant, cap doffing, servile right to maintain the undemocratic status quo. 

Rubbish. A constitutional monarch has no influence on the democratic process which IMO has been well and truly destroyed by the politicians and their fellow travelers anyway.

 

However, by not declining to be king and passing it on to his far more popular son, Charles is probably the most likely reason for Australia becoming a republic if it goes that way.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Do you have evidence to back up that claim or is it all just wishful thinking on your part? 

IMO the best reason for having a constitutional monarch is that it avoids wasting money on yet another politician feeding at the taxpayer trough.

[JonnyF]

King Charles is an elderly man, recovering from cancer flying half way around the world to meet people.

 

No matter their views, to refuse to meet him just shows how classless they are. 

[RuamRudy]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the best reason for having a constitutional monarch is that it avoids wasting money on yet another politician feeding at the taxpayer trough.

 

Democracy isn't cheap but the ability to choose your head of state - and to remove him if he is unfit for the job - is priceless. 

[youreavinalaff]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:27 AM, Brian Hull said:

Bring on the Referendum. These is no place in the governing of Australia for its citizens to show deference to a foreign head of state. Bring on The Republic of Australia.

There's already been a referendum. Didn't you know that?

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Democracy isn't cheap but the ability to choose your head of state - and to remove him if he is unfit for the job - is priceless. 

An elected head of state for you would come automatically with independence. There was a referendum. How did that go? How's the independence movement going now? It's very quiet.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Democracy isn't cheap but the ability to choose your head of state - and to remove him if he is unfit for the job - is priceless. 

That only applies if the Head of State has power.

[RuamRudy]

16 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

An elected head of state for you would come automatically with independence. 

 

There is nothing automatic about it. There are many countries which have managed to slip the thieving, pernicious grip of the United Kingdom but still keep the royal family as their head of state. 

[JonnyF]

22 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Democracy isn't cheap but the ability to choose your head of state - and to remove him if he is unfit for the job - is priceless. 

 

They already had a referendum.

 

Just like they did on Scottish Independence and Brexit.

 

I'm surprised you'd want another one. They don't seem to go your way.

 

As for the importance of countries being sovereign, I'm glad you're coming round to the importance of Brexit. 

[youreavinalaff]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

There is nothing automatic about it. There are many countries which have managed to slip the thieving, pernicious grip of the United Kingdom but still keep the royal family as their head of state. 

A view of the UK the majority of Scottish people clearly disagree with.

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

They already had a referendum.

 

Just like they did on Scottish Independence and Brexit.

 

I'm surprised you'd want another one. They don't seem to go your way.

 

Who had a referendum about what? 

 

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

As for the importance of countries being sovereign, I'm glad you're coming round to the importance of Brexit. 

 

Did you actually intend that sentence to be relevant to this thread or did you just want to post nonsequitor nonsense? 

[Lacessit]

16 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

There's already been a referendum. Didn't you know that?

Rigged by Howard and Abbott, the quislings of Australia.

 

i seriously doubt Australians will grow up in my lifetime.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

A view of the UK the majority of Scottish people clearly disagree with.

 

We are getting significantly of topic here, but as I have explained on this forum on more than a couple of occasions, the majority of Scottish people actually voted for independence but the results were tipped in favour of remain by incomers. This is documented fact. 

 

Anyway, back to the topic of Australia and the monarchy... 

[youreavinalaff]

29 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

We are getting significantly of topic here, but as I have explained on this forum on more than a couple of occasions, the majority of Scottish people actually voted for independence but the results were tipped in favour of remain by incomers. This is documented fact. 

 

Anyway, back to the topic of Australia and the monarchy... 

Australia had a referendum about the monarchy. Scotland had a referendum about independence. The results are well known facts. As is people complaining they weren't right just because they don't like the result.

[youreavinalaff]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Rigged by Howard and Abbott, the quislings of Australia.

 

i seriously doubt Australians will grow up in my lifetime.

Rigged? That's an interesting view. 

 

Would you care to elaborate and back it up.?

[Lacessit]

39 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Rigged? That's an interesting view. 

 

Would you care to elaborate and back it up.?

I don't remember the exact details, but the terms of the referendum were couched in such a way it would have taken something like a 75% vote in favor of becoming a republic to get up. That was not going to happen with many Australians still wanting to tug the forelock to Liz.

 

Howard carried on the Menzies tradition of British to the bootheels. The Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was quite vomitous in his servility.

 

Abbott presumably is still hoping for a knighthood. Knighting Prince Philip was when the whole of Australia laughed and cringed simultaneously.