Royal Tour: The Republican Perspective and Articles

Started by PrincessOfPeace, April 01, 2014, 11:48:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cinrit

Quote from: Limabeany on April 16, 2014, 06:56:27 PM
Polls, is one thing, the whimsical interpretation of a royal fan like Richard is another. Only 42%?  :happy15: Clearly there is more than one group who is selective...  :teehee: 

The figure came from a poll, not from someone's hopeful imagination.  From the article:

QuoteAccording to a Fairfax-Nielsen poll, 51 percent of Australians believed the switch to a republic was unnecessary and only 42 percent were in favour of a republic.

Prince George 'the Republican Slayer' due to popularity of royals | Mail Online

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

Orchid

There's so much more to the republican ideology and movement than any basic sample poll could ever begin to unpick, represent or even vitiate.  The same is true of monarchism and any political system.  Yet focusing intently on the statistics of these minority focus groups and the accompanying grab-tags of newspaper journalists is rarely helpful, or even worthwhile, if the aim is to extend an interesting and enlightening discussion on the issues which emerge from the complex and ever evolving polarity of these cultural and political systems of thought.

I haven't participated much in this tour thread because the journalistic reporting (and the tour itself) has been, in my humble opinion, beyond inane and somewhat predictable in its aim and efforts, and the republican issues that have been touched upon by the press have been limited to the results of short polls and blunt headlines proclaiming the movements' decline/death.  Grated, I've been amused to see how much these headlines have unquestioningly delighted monarchists, without recourse to objective analysis or open discussion about the accuracy or reasons underpinning such claims.  Predictably, favourable pro-monarchy poll results satiate the monarchists' desire and demand for statistical success and political one-upmanship and that, it seems, is all that's required in the den of a forum thread where proving one's views are right is more important than open debates. But these small polls and headlines don't, in reality, function to serve the truth in terms of the collective and disparate views of any one international community when it comes to monarchy or republicanism.  And how can [they] when political systems – in practice and theory, existing or proposed – are far more complex in their makeup than any closed-answer questionnaire and biased journalist hunched over his PC airing his subjective take on world events could ever begin to uncover.

But I blame, in part, the press. They commission/utilise the polls to generate the headlines (leaning on their political bias of course) and then disseminate the results to the public who then use the media's slant on issues as the basis for, and worse – PROOF OF – the tours success / republican decline / monarchical security / Australian sentiment etc etc etc.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Lothwen

:goodpost:


I also have to add, how are the polls worded?  Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance?  If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care. 
You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

PrincessOfPeace

The thing is this, anyone can conduct polls. There are many left-wing organisations in Britain that avoid polling on the Monarchy like the plague. They will poll about welfare, hospitals and schools and present their numbers as proof we need more socialism but they avoid polling about the Queen.

There is a reason for this obviously. The Graun is the republican paper of record in Britain, no one buys it and it looses money hand over fist but they are openly republican and hate all things even remotely right-wing or pro-monarchy.

Every once in a blue moon they conduct a poll on the popularity of Britain's constitutional monarchy, the latest being in 2012 and guess what the result were? Now if an openly left-wing pro-republican news organisation like the Graun can't find any of the supposedly millions of republicans in Britain, I'm kind of sceptical of their so called 'movement'

SophieChloe

Quote from: Lothwen on April 19, 2014, 02:00:45 AM
:goodpost:


I also have to add, how are the polls worded?  Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance?  If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care. 


Quote from: Orchid on April 19, 2014, 12:01:41 AM
There's so much more to the republican ideology and movement than any basic sample poll could ever begin to unpick, represent or even vitiate.  The same is true of monarchism and any political system.  Yet focusing intently on the statistics of these minority focus groups and the accompanying grab-tags of newspaper journalists is rarely helpful, or even worthwhile, if the aim is to extend an interesting and enlightening discussion on the issues which emerge from the complex and ever evolving polarity of these cultural and political systems of thought.

I haven't participated much in this tour thread because the journalistic reporting (and the tour itself) has been, in my humble opinion, beyond inane and somewhat predictable in its aim and efforts, and the republican issues that have been touched upon by the press have been limited to the results of short polls and blunt headlines proclaiming the movements' decline/death.  Grated, I've been amused to see how much these headlines have unquestioningly delighted monarchists, without recourse to objective analysis or open discussion about the accuracy or reasons underpinning such claims.  Predictably, favourable pro-monarchy poll results satiate the monarchists' desire and demand for statistical success and political one-upmanship and that, it seems, is all that's required in the den of a forum thread where proving one's views are right is more important than open debates. But these small polls and headlines don't, in reality, function to serve the truth in terms of the collective and disparate views of any one international community when it comes to monarchy or republicanism.  And how can [they] when political systems – in practice and theory, existing or proposed – are far more complex in their makeup than any closed-answer questionnaire and biased journalist hunched over his PC airing his subjective take on world events could ever begin to uncover.

But I blame, in part, the press. They commission/utilise the polls to generate the headlines (leaning on their political bias of course) and then disseminate the results to the public who then use the media's slant on issues as the basis for, and worse – PROOF OF – the tours success / republican decline / monarchical security / Australian sentiment etc etc etc.

Goodness, You two are very clever  :hug: :hug:
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Lothwen

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 02:28:59 AM
The thing is this, anyone can conduct polls. There are many left-wing organisations in Britain that avoid polling on the Monarchy like the plague. They will poll about welfare, hospitals and schools and present their numbers as proof we need more socialism but they avoid polling about the Queen.

There is a reason for this obviously. The Graun is the republican paper of record in Britain, no one buys it and it looses money hand over fist but they are openly republican and hate all things even remotely right-wing or pro-monarchy.

Every once in a blue moon they conduct a poll on the popularity of Britain's constitutional monarchy, the latest being in 2012 and guess what the result were? Now if an openly left-wing pro-republican news organisation like the Graun can't find any of the supposedly millions of republicans in Britain, I'm kind of sceptical of their so called 'movement'

You're right, anyone can conduct a poll, and when you read a poll you have to look at who it is that conducted it in the first place.  You also have to realize there are ways to skew the results.

For example, years ago my dad was asked a question.  "Are you in favor of raising taxes to support Social Security?"  and his answer was "no."  Well, when the poll came out, it said that the majority of people polled did not support Social Security.  You see where I'm going with this?

My hometown was just listed as the 3rd worst city to live in the US.  They polled 484 people, when there are over 100,000 people living in it, and the surrounding area.  That's less than 1% 

When they say 42%, or whatever, they mean out of the people they've polled.  That's not representative of the entire population
You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

PrincessOfPeace

^^ My point exactly. If the Graun can't skew the numbers in favour of a 'republic' I don't have much hope for their revolution buts that's just me

Limabeany

This conversation, the Monarchy's role and the Commonwealth's relationship with it will be completely different that they are now after the Queen passes...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Orchid

Quote from: Lothwen on April 19, 2014, 02:00:45 AM
I also have to add, how are the polls worded?  Are people given a choice of x number of issues currently facing the UK, and asked to rank them in order of importance?  If so, then I guarantee abolishing the monarchy is going to come after things like the Economy, National Security and Health care. 

Polls are generally more focused on a primary issue with an associated set of questions, but I suppose if a poll were being undertaken to gage reactions to a broader selection of national issues then a multiple choice survey could be used.

But re: your latter point, I'd hazard a safe guess that matters such as the NHS and economy will always come before monarchy. The monarchy is an ideological, political issue which is distant from, almost disconnected from, the majority of people in comparison to more direct issues of health care and the economy which probably explains any percentages of inertia when it comes to monarchy/republic debates. 

But as an aside, I can offer an older example of monarchy being lower on the national priorities list [lord give me strength] via a 2009 readers poll conducted by the Observer and Guardian.  It placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54% but just 3% saw it as a priority issue. It's a nice example of poll results being misrepresentative and frankly, utterly useless. Republicans could unquestioningly use the figure to proclaim majority support for a republic. Yet support for "abolishing" the monarchy doesn't automatically mean people don't generally support the institution. As oxymoronic as that first appears it could be that economic considerations are more of a priority to people in a recession hit country i.e they support monarchy in principle but it costs too much to keep. Equally, a 54% sample majority doesn't mean 54% of readers wanted to institute an existing republic model therefore abolishing a monarchy doesn't mean there's 54% support for a republic. Fact is, the complex reasons behind the readers votes aren't apparent - even though it has a high republican readership - and therefore the results cannot be presumed or incorporated into an argument at will to "prove a case".   

This is equally true of all these little polls coming out in favour of a monarchy during the Cambridge's tour. X% of 200 people support monarchy. Does that mean they decidedly support the institution and all that it embodies, or that they are apathetic towards it, or even that they support it only because alternatives seem unclear and therefore there's nothing solid to measure it against. Or does it just mean they like William and Kate or they think the Queen is a grande old gal, ergo they vaguely support monarchy.  The reasons behind why support is high is more important that the figure itself.  Hence why I detest polls and find them to be utterly useless in any objective, informed discussion that aims to create a dialogue on the complexities of reality rather than loosely "prove" a vague, elusive point.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

With respect, you all need to get past the 'dialogue' stage and start making some noise. I'm 23 years of age and I don't have an iota of worry about any 'republican movement' in Britain. A subject I was born and I subject I will proudly die and of that I have no doubt.
QuoteThe monarchy is an ideological, political issue which is distant from, almost disconnected from, the majority of people in comparison to more direct issues of health care and the economy which probably explains any percentages of inertia when it comes to monarchy/republic debates.

This has always been a blind spot for republicans. There is no debate at all. Britain is already a constitutional monarchy, we hold all the cards. For me republicans might as well debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin because frankly I have no idea how your mythical republic is going to come about. We just aren't going to abolish our monarchy and traditions, we're just not.

I respect your views but you're living in the wrong country if you hope to ever live in a republic.

Lady Adams

#85
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:16:40 AM

I respect your views but you're living in the wrong country if you hope to ever live in a republic.
Have you ever lived in another country, Princess of Peace? Immigrating is a lot harder than one imagines.
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Lothwen

^^You're 23, PrincessofPeace?


I'm curious.  What is your basis for wanting to continue having the Monarchy?  What does it do for you?  I'm curious.  As an American, I view your royals as little more than glorified celebrities.  They live in castles and manors, and country homes, and have their lifestyles paid for (at least in part) by the tax-payer.  People like to say that they bring in money to the country, but even if there wasn't a Monarchy you could still tour the Palaces, and see the Tower of London.  France got rid of their Monarchy, and people still like to visit there.

Also, the royals seem to be praised for doing the most minute and mundane tasks.  They are praised for going to visit their charities, but what of the people who are involved every day?  For example, Kate is called the "Children's Princess",  yet in the 3 years she's been married to William she has spent less than 40 hours at her children's charities.   Why would you praise her, and say she's a "caring" human being, but completely ignore the work done by the people who are there on a daily basis?

Do you think the royals are better than the rest of the population? 
You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

Orchid

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:16:40 AMWith respect, you all need to get past the 'dialogue' stage and start making some noise. I'm 23 years of age and I don't have an iota of worry about any 'republican movement' in Britain. A subject I was born and I subject I will proudly die and of that I have no doubt.

PrincessOfPeace, you'll have to define exactly what you mean by "make some noise".

Your assessment that republican lobbying needs to "get past the dialogue stage" lacks acute political awareness.  Every political and cultural system functions and evolves through dialogue. It's what underpins every social debate, every parliamentary act, every state and monarchical function, every revolutionary aim.  Scotland, for instance, would not be in the midst of a debate on independence without "dialogue".  Dialogue is "noise" in the "right way" and by that I mean it is open, democratic and, crucially, peaceful.  I certainly wouldn't support any republican lobbying that wasn't peaceful. Republicanism may be revolutionary for the UK but that doesn't mean it has to dominate the political landscape in a "noisy", aggressive way for it to gradually make its mark. What's more, radical political changes need time and the right social climate to really begin to take hold.  A parallel to the French Revolution is certainly not on the cards, nor would I want it to be.

As a monarchist it's perfectly reasonable for you to feel secure in the safety of the monarchy in the present day and immediate future – certainly for as long as QE11 reigns. However, the future of the UK's political landscape is never certain and just because the monarchy has existed to the present day doesn't, by rights, determine its future.  Nonetheless, whether we live with a constitutional monarchy or a republic framing our politics, you can independently elect whether or not you wish to class yourself as a "subject" of a monarch - past or present - from cradle to grave.   

QuoteThis has always been a blind spot for republicans. There is no debate at all. Britain is already a constitutional monarchy, we hold all the cards.

Perhaps your perception of "debate" differs from mine.  Lobbying constitutes debate and Republic are an organised group lobbying parliament and inviting the public to engage with related issues. The presence of republican MP's in parliament constitutes a political contention. Newspaper articles on any republic/monarchical issue is a form of debate and political contention. Any republican issue that circulates in the political and public arena constitutes a public debate. Ergo there is indeed a debate occurring within the UK. Whether it is deemed sufficient and effective at the present time and in the current format is an entirely different matter!

Quote...For me republicans might as well debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin because frankly I have no idea how your mythical republic is going to come about. We just aren't going to abolish our monarchy and traditions, we're just not.

Employing reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument. 

To address your statement about a "mythical republic", I would say that Plato's Republic is mythical... a potential UK Republic is quite possible! Let's not confuse an unwillingness to engage with a different political model with its real-world credentials and possibilities.  If you genuinely have no idea how a Republic may materialise, perhaps you need to consider more objectively the ideals of a republic and their potential appeal in the political and social climate of the UK [in the future], alongside the causes and reasons behind other countries evolving into Republics.  Political landscapes and social and cultural ideals do evolve.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

QuoteEmploying reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument.

The last thing I will say on this is my 'argument' doesn't need strengthening, again Britain is already a monarchy. It seems to me that your movement is in need of strengthening the argument.

Republicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.

Good luck to you and your comrades and have a happy life. In the meantime its a beautiful time for a monarchist like me to be alive. God Save the Queen and all that good stuff :)

Limabeany

 41% of New Zealanders see things differently...  :Jen:
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Orchid

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
QuoteEmploying reductio ad absurdum as a means of trying to debase the republican issue isn't strengthening your argument.

The last thing I will say on this is my 'argument' doesn't need strengthening, again Britain is already a monarchy. It seems to me that your movement is in need of strengthening the argument.

Indeed, republicanism must continue to strengthen its campaign, as must the monarchy.  The Cambridge's aren't on tour for their health - they are campaigning for their popularity, survival and ultimately, their continuance just as any political system - existing or embryonic - must do. Ergo, both "sides" of the argument need to be continual strengthened. And so I continue to see flaws in your argument of impossibility and presumed continuity. 

QuoteRepublicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.

Impossible? No.  A working progress?  Yes.  Doesn't every new political movement begin on the fringes of the existing fabric of a society.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

In the spirit of goodwill lets agree to disagree for the moment. I honestly respect your views, I just don't think its a realistic endeavour nor do I believe in republicanism, but thats just my opinion

No to lighten the mood, come on you republicans if you can't beat us then you may as well join us  :P


By George, they've made me a Royalist
QuoteI'M a bit embarrassed to admit this, given I'm supposed to be an ardent republican, but I'm really looking forward to King William V and Queen Catherine.

On present form, King George VII looks like a monarch worth waiting for, too.

After the endless reign of Queen Elizabeth II, we are likely in our lifetimes to see a slightly more rapid succession of monarchs accede the throne of Britain: that is, Charles IV will be an old man when he becomes king, and his son William will be a middle-aged monarch by the time he takes over.

And I predict Prince William and Catherine, who are attending an Easter Sunday service at St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney City, then heading to Taronga Zoo, will be as stylish and as charming in their 50s, when they finally get crowned, as they are today.
More: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/by-george-theyve-made-me-a-royalist/story-fni0cwl5-1226889100306

Orchid

In many discussions between monarchists and republicans there'll be a need to agree to disagree as our views are polarized and the politics we support exist in opposition. But it's important to remember that it's the politics that sit in opposition, not the people. Disparity and disagreement isn't a bad thing, quite the contrary. I've no issue with anyone disbelieving the possibilities of a UK Republic or equally disagreeing with [its] political ideologies, but refusing to engage with [its] ideas because they don't correlate with ones own isn't conducive to an open dialogue.

***

Continuing that article, here's the remaining [unquoted] section which outlines reasons to support William and Kate, beginning with "her commitment to the blow dry" and ending with the aesthetics of "their beautiful baby".  I'm undecided as to whether the author of this article, Claire Harvey, intended it as a serious piece or a spoof. Answers on a card please.

Quote...But does that make them fit to rule?

Well, here's my reasoning: we have to have a head-of-state of some form. Australians rejected the notion of a president appointed by Parliament back in 1999; which means it'll be at least another generation, and probably several, before we get any kind of republic.

So if we're insisting on having unelected people as our symbolic figureheads, I'd prefer them to be as glamorous, selfless, thoughtful and dedicated as possible. In fact, we'll be on the lookout for a new Governor-General in five years' time: how about the Duke and Duchess?

My new-found royal fandom is not very cool. It's kind of a betrayal of my generation. But here's why I love the Cambridges — republican or not.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

Its a spoof but thats what makes it serious. I think the point is at times republicans have a tendency to over think the issue. There are many elements that go into the monarchy. To over look the emotional attachment monarchists have for the family is to miss a big part of the issue.

The biggest hurdle republicans have is to convince an entire nation to throw the baby out with the bath water. You want us to invent a new country. Everything from postage stamps to the names of our aircraft carriers will be changed.

The ills of the country aren't due to the monarchy, they're due to the brain waves we elect to Westminster and everyone knows this. Politicians come and go but the crown endures.

Some people support the monarchy because of its role as constitutional guardian and firewall, others enjoy the pomp and pageantry while still others like the tradition and history and continuity that goes with our hereditary system.

Again, personally I have no clue why republicans think they're going to be able to convince us to give all this up and just add another politician to the mix. Elected and appointed politicians the world over are only a necessary evil. There is a reason snake oil salesmen have a higher approval rating than the US Congress.

If we were a republic tomorrow, everything that is wrong with the country because of screwball politicians would still be there and our traditions and monarchy will be gone and for what? To have some gormless president waving at me from the newly named 'People's Palace' ? Thanks but no thanks.

Lady Adams

"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Lothwen

Quote from: Orchid on April 19, 2014, 04:25:47 PM



QuoteRepublicanism is a fringe movement at best and with no political representation its an impossible task.

Impossible? No.  A working progress?  Yes. Doesn't every new political movement begin on the fringes of the existing fabric of a society.



The Republican movement in America did....ba da bing! I'm here all week folks

You may think you're cool, but do you have a smiley named after you?
Harryite 12-005

Okay, fine.  Macrobug is now as cool as I am

Orchid

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin

QuoteTiming is everything they say. And there is now doubt that on this Royal tour to Australia that the starring role of Prince George have been right on cue.

The "Republican Slayer" as even anti-royalists Down Under have dubbed the little prince after his starring role, has put the cause for ditching the monarchy here back years.

As his mother and father spent a night away from his - sleeping under the stars tonight at a "glamping" resort in the shadow of Uluru itself, leaving him in the care of his Spanish nanny back in Canberra, all the talk has been about the impact of "Prince of Cuteness" after photos of him and a Bilby - a Australian marsupial - at Sydney's Taronga Zoo went around the world.

Even Geoff Gallop, of the Australian Republican Movement, admitted, albeit grudgingly, live on air on the biggest television network here that the Royal Family have a "pretty good" PR machine.

But well as Kensington Palace Communications Secretary Dr. Ed Perkins and his team have undoubtedly done on this one in a generation tour, arranging picture perfect photo opportunities, this royal renaissance has nothing to do with spin.

It is the principals, particularly Prince William, who are driving this unique, new style royal roadshow.
More: Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Limabeany

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 22, 2014, 10:54:15 PM
Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin

QuoteTiming is everything they say. And there is now doubt that on this Royal tour to Australia that the starring role of Prince George have been right on cue.

The "Republican Slayer" as even anti-royalists Down Under have dubbed the little prince after his starring role, has put the cause for ditching the monarchy here back years.

Even Geoff Gallop, of the Australian Republican Movement, admitted, albeit grudgingly, live on air on the biggest television network here that the Royal Family have a "pretty good" PR machine.

But well as Kensington Palace Communications Secretary Dr. Ed Perkins and his team have undoubtedly done on this one in a generation tour, arranging picture perfect photo opportunities, this royal renaissance has nothing to do with spin.

It is the principals, particularly Prince William, who are driving this unique, new style royal roadshow.
More: Royal tour commentary: this royal renaissance has nothing to do with PR spin - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Also from this article:

Quote
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a Liberal and staunch monarchist, has made great hay from this royal visit.

He has been one step behind the royal couple on many of the engagements - introducing them to his favourite Beach Manly, where still surfs and joining them for an Anglican Easter Sunday Service, despite being a Catholic himself.

But the monarchy should not be complacent.

Mr. Gallop is right when he say opinions polls are fickle, they often depend on what questions are asked.

Still the Charles and Camilla factor is an issue.

Republicans believe that if the question was asked: "Should we have an elected Head of State when the next British Monarch comes to the throne?" - they would win the argument.

But if monarchy is to remain relevant is a modern, vibrant, cosmopolitan country like Australia is becoming they need to be a constant presence - not just a glamorous roadshow every 7 years.

I would argue that the royal players need to spend more time than they do in the Commonwealth countries.

Prince Harry coming here for a weekend last year was not long enough. He should be the next to come here and spend time here.

Supporting The Commonwealth - that the Queen has supporting tirelessly since it's inception - is clearly the big policy too for these new royals.

Whether that will be enough for Prince George to one day be King here is doubtful.


But for the moment, these wonderful images of him playing with the endangered Bilby at Taronga Zoo with a proud and relaxed mum and dad looking on won't have done the monarchist cause Down Under any harm.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

PrincessOfPeace

^^^ We'll have too see. Prince George is still decades away from being king of Australia. Hopefully for republicans they come up with a working plan between now a then.

So far the republican mantra of 'change for the sake of change' is falling upon deaf ears. In the meantime I have decades of Antipodean  royal tours to enjoy.