Why do Australians want to remain under British monarchy?

  • If I am not wrong they once voted against being a republic country some years ago. I understand Australians and feel sympathy for them about that they are different from some other countries which they were under British monarchy like India. They have many similarities with their famous grandmother and do not feel they have to be an independent republic to feel a full respect and confidence as an Australian citizen. But it is only a guess on ground of sociology not the reality behind this decision.

    What is their main reason to refuse independence and is it the only one?

    This is an interesting question.

    Australians have not "refused independence". Australia is entirely independent of any other country in all practical ways.

    @DJClayworth, yep, Australia is independent until our interests contradict with the US... But it's a different topic.

    The referendum didn't ask about the goal of being a republic: it asked about moving to a particular republican model. That model *sucked*. It isn't that the existing constitutional monarchy is *good* it is that all the alternative models proposed so far are *worse*. Republicans and constitutional reformers in the UK have the same problem: no alternative to the monarchy (or the House of Lords) has yet looked *better.*

    To build on @DJClayworth's point, while the same person is both the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia (as well as the Queen of 14 other countries), these are constitutionally separate roles. The Commonwealth Realms are sovereign, independent countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

  • DJClayworth

    DJClayworth Correct answer

    9 years ago

    This is a pretty good article summarizing the reasons for monarchist support in Australia. Allow me to pull out some quotes:

    • The Royal family do lots of work for charity, and their high profile means they can bring media attention to important issues. For a lot of people having a Royal family is fun, people like reading about them in magazines, and in that way they're like celebrities.

    • Some people see the Royal family and the links to Britain, as an important part of Australia's heritage. The monarchy has served Australia well for a long time and there's the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

    • Even though [the Royal Family] enjoy a lavish lifestyle, it doesn't cost Australians a cent. The only time we ever pay for the Royals is when they come over here.

    • The monarchy has the ability to remove a government if it's abusing its power and that way they're like an extra safety net for our democracy.

    Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy should also provide you with some arguments in favour of a Monarch.

    • The Westminster system has been exported to many countries and has had an unrivalled success, unlike the constitutional models of the to two oldest ( politicians') republics, the USA and Switzerland.

    • “Some of us believe that Australia is already a form of republic under the Crown: a "crowned republic". Australia now enjoys all the desirable features of a republican government and a constitutional monarchy without any disadvantages of either system. Agitation for change is unnecessary, irrelevant, divisive and distracting.”

    • Republicanism would be more expensive than the current system, and even the debate about it is extremely expensive.

    Pervading the second article (and expressed in the phrase 'politicians republic') is the idea that if you elect a head of state, you invariably get a politician as head of state. The article believes this would be worse than a monarch.

    This answer explains why *monarchists* voted against a republic but not why most swing voters and republicans voted against the models offered.

    "The Westminster system has been exported to many countries and has had an unrivalled success" .... um what? Proof? Facts? Under what grounds?

    Australia could leave the monarchy and keep the same system, the prime minister already appoints the governor general.

    *The monarchy has the ability to remove a government if it's abusing its power and that way they're like an extra safety net for our democracy.* Man, that makes me wish the U.S. of A. were still a British Colony :-)

    @Jens if the queen could, she would not remove Trump. He has no my abused his power at all - he was democratically elected. If he’s broken the law either it will be revealed and he’ll be impeached or it will stay hidden. In either case, there’s nothing more for a monarch to do.

    The ability of democracies to reflect the symptoms of their society in their representatives can be considered a feature or a bug. There are a lot of passionate opinions held regarding President Trump - but in regards to models of government, a presidential model of concentrating power in one person is one of the flaws of the republican model (both for Romans and the USA). Putting aside school-room propaganda, the "check and balances" have proven inadequate well before the 21st century. Seeing the _systemic flaws_ is harder than blaming others - a vice whose overindulgence is also a symptom.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM