Splitting Heirs
Patrick Emerton (Letters, 16/2) writes that there are no constitutional problems with Australia having a different monarch to Britain. Many of us with a republican sentiment suspect that most supporters of our present arrangements are simply died-in-the-wool royalists who feel great loyalty to Her Majesty personally and see themselves still as British subjects. Their arguments about stability and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" are just a smokescreen for latent cultural insecurity.
This suggests a simple test: let's see how the constitutional monarchists react to a new successor under the same constitution. If we don't like Princes Charles or William, then former monarchs (and aspirants) are thick on the ground in Europe and I think we could readily coax one out. Prince Frederik of Denmark, for instance, seems popular.
This would highlight that Australian monarchism is all about ensuring the British Sovereign's rule here - and not about preserving our constitution.
This suggests a simple test: let's see how the constitutional monarchists react to a new successor under the same constitution. If we don't like Princes Charles or William, then former monarchs (and aspirants) are thick on the ground in Europe and I think we could readily coax one out. Prince Frederik of Denmark, for instance, seems popular.
This would highlight that Australian monarchism is all about ensuring the British Sovereign's rule here - and not about preserving our constitution.
| Vent! | ↑ |
