If this person is your official head of state, I would like your opinion on something.
Do you consider yourself:
A) A monarchist
B) A republican (in the anti-monarchy sense)
C) Neither of the above?
I shall explain what brought this question into my mind after at least a few people chime in; I don’t want to bias any answers.
Mild monarchist. (Canada; Commonwealth country.)
A) A monarchist (Oz, part o’ the commonwealf, your 'onor).
Closer to A, I suppose.
I think the current system works pretty well and I voted against the republic model proposed in the 1999 referendum (gosh, wasn’t that a long time ago now!)
I’m not completely anti-republic though. I just haven’t found any of the arguments generally put forward to justify the change to be very persuasive.
I don’t currently live in the Commonwealth, but I remain a loyal subject of Her Majesty. I’m a republican, but I voted “No” in the 1999 Australian referendum, because it proposed the wrong way of choosing a president: the president should be elected directly by the people, as in such democracies as France and Ireland.
A very mild monarchist, when I think about it. Turning the country into a republic seems so complex that it’ll take something major (the Queen’s death, maybe) to kickstart and sustain a national debate on the subject, so I’m happy the way things are
Ostensibly, a Republican.
However, I do blanche at the way in which Australia has approached the Republican debate. The last time we had a referendum on it we were offered the stark choice of a) Constitutional Monarchy or b) Republic. I would have liked to have seen more choice, for example c) Absolute Monarchy or maybe d) Divine rule of a Sun-King or even e) Constitutional Monarchy with an Australian-born king. f)Anarcho-Syndicalism didn’t get a jersey. Fans of g) Kelptocracy were left neglected and any chance of us ever becoming a h) Enlightened Absolutist state were just flushed down the toilet!
but mainly I’m a Republican
A) for the reason that I’m not too sure what Mr Blair or his successor would cook up to replace it and as it is, it adds a bit of pomp and circumstance to proceedings.
Brit. I’m a monarchist, but only because no better solution has been found. I dread Charles becoming king.
I suppose A.
(British, not living in the UK or any other Commonwealth country, so I don’t think I’m actually entitled to have any opinion on the matter.)
And we need to change things before Camilla comes to the throne!
Monarchist. “Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen”.
I’m hardly Camilla’s number one fan, but what’s wrong with her?
Republican. Can’t see why we’re still paying for all the Queen’s agent’s pomp and finery, when our elected parliament’s doing all the real work.
Nothing against Queen Bess – just feel that times change.
Soft republican, in that if we were starting from scratch I wouldn’t vote for the current system, but it does work OK so why risk changing it? I don’t really understand the point of having a head of state at all, actually. Switzerland doesn’t really have one, and they seem to get by. If we must have a symbolic national leader, I’m glad that it’s not a position you can campaign and/or bribe your way to. And, ignoring the head of state aspect, a parliamentary constitutional monarchy is not that different from a republic.
Ardent Monarchist (like that’s a surprise to anyone here! )
Australian/New Zealander- I wasn’t in Australia for the '99 Referendum, but would have voted “NO” had I been.