Act? Whatever.
No, the monarchy is not sacrosanct, it just happens to be a key element in the most stable form of government yet devised and there is no interest to replace it, let alone enhance it.
And the threat to the monarchy caused by Edward’s abdication is one of the key reasons why QEII will fulfil her coronation oath.
My contribution to this subthread (apparently not a hijack) is purely anecdotal. I was living in Australia at the time, and followed the news, but never got into the gritty details. And, of course, things can change from how they’re originally intended. But the idea that was presented was that an Australian President would replace the Governor General but have essentially the same duties which are mostly ceremonial. (Although there was a bit of kerfuffle in 1975, which was brought up when the 1999 referendum. was being discussed.
1975 Australian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia)
Indeed, one of the most popular candidates for Australian president, should the referendum have passed, was the existing Governor-General.
My recollection is that the referendum was managed by the Howard government into a vote that they could easily win, and that had no real downside if they lost. It involved no fundamental change to government, and was therefore treated as a referendum on whether the Queen was liked as a head of state, rather than an issue vital to Australia’s democracy. My guess is that if there’s a future Australian republican referendum after the Queen’s passing, it will similarly be based on King Charles III’s popularity, rather than a vote on changing the mechanism of government.
Just to reinforce the rebuttal by @Northern_Piper; that was not the question posed on the plebiscite. And there are profound constitutional and political questions arising from which Republican model was selected. The failure of the plebiscite was because the Republican Movement wanted a directly elected President which split the progressive movement in half. It is highly unlikely the direct election model would have succeeded. The parliamentary appointed republic would have succeeded if the ARM had thrown their weight behind it.
Not a British citizen but I’ve lived there when he was really massively unpopular regarding Diana. I’ve become more sympathetic since then because I think pop culture portrayal of Diana as this angelic princess is not entirely accurate nor the portrayal of him being a villain. If it wasn’t for antiquated norms Charles and Camilla would have been together 40 years ago and saved Diana and everyone else from being a modern day Greek tragedy.
Again, no.
The minimalist “McGarvie” model was discussed but was the first model rejected by the convention. Which was a pity.
However, yes William Deane would be precisely the sort of President the Australian populace would like to see in that role, but they won’t get him or his ilk they persist in the wanting a directly election.
I’ll mostly defer to your informed opinion as I was a spectator for the referendum. However, I recall the issue of Australia keeping Elisabeth II as a head of state, and focussing on her as a personality, rather than as a political entity was widely discussed. I even remember her being cheered when she said she would accept the results of the referendum with equitability, which supposedly swayed a few voters into voting for the status quo.
Do you believe the issue of the change of the head of state was the most fundamental decision point for voters for the 1999 referendum, or do you think it was a plebiscite on maintaining the Queen as the head of state?
Also, getting back to the OP (except for the Britons bit in the title), do you think the decision would be different in a hypothetical future referendum with Charles as the Australian head of state?
Also Canadian, and agree with this. There will also be a bunch of admin stuff to be done (eg new portraits on money and in govt buildings; HMC changed from Her Majesty’s Canadian to His Majesty’s…etc). Beyond that I’m not sure that most of us will really care one way or another.
I’ve heard that there are some rumblings that the coronation of King Charles would be the perfect opportunity for us to become a republic but that, constitutionally, the odds of it succeeding would be astronomically low.
And to Little_nemo’s “Are you saying the persons who reign are essentially interchangeable?” - essentially yes
And yet he could conceivably reign for 20 years, which is likely close to an average-length reign.
46 replies so far, and no mention of having to change the name of the national anthem 
?
^ Plus replacing “ER” with CR"* on ceremonial uniforms, theatre curtains &c.
* Has it been established whether Charles will use his first given name as his regnal name?
To “My Country, 'Tis of Thee”?
I’m reasonably sure that a decision has been made (and likely was made many years ago), but I don’t think it’s ever been made public knowledge.
I think if his mum had died 20 years ago he would have been George VII, due the the baggage that “King Charles” holds. Since then he’s had a grandson named George and has been directly asked and has claimed he will be Charles.
We’ll still basically be singing ‘Ner ner ner nerrr ner ner’ for most of the song, just people will be muddling up the one line they actually currently know, so yeah, I guess that’s a change.
[Deity(s) of choice] save our noble [delete as appropriate] king/queen [delete as appropriate].
Just need unanimous consent from all 10 provinces and both houses of Parliament. Easy-peasy!
That’s what I was thinking of. After almost 70 years of singing “God save the Queen”, it’s going to be a tough habit to break. I wonder how much of a scandal it will be if someone sings “Queen” when it should be “King”, even more so if Charles is present.
And William is 39 now, so if Charles ascends to the throne this year, and reigns twenty years, William would be about sixty when he ascends. At that point, Prince George will be 28. So it doesn’t look like you’re going to have a young monarch any time soon.
In this country? A piece of cake 
I predict Charles ascends, he’s waited a life time, and suffered a restricted life in many ways, while doing so. He’s definitely going to want that coronation, and to see his name on that list of monarchs.
But beyond that, I’m pretty sure it will be a short reign, he’ll endow and protect some pet projects, then pass to William as soon as things should get sticky in any way. Another coronation? All good for tourism!
As for former empires, I suspect most will seize the opportunity to drop the British Monarch as the money image. Switching to national heroes etc. Canada has already begun the process.
Fight this 'Merican’s total ignorance. Who are some Canadian heroes?