A correspondent to the Advertiser today suggests that should Australia decide to become a republic they may well cease to be a member of the Commonwealth ("who cares?" some of you will ask). But I observeThis scenario that the correspondent paints of Australia not being allowed to remain in the Commonwealth should we become a republic is truly bizarre.
Sixteen members of the Commonwealth recognise the Queen as their head of State. However the majority of members, thirty three, are republics and five others actually have monarchs of different royal houses.
What seems to me, and other republicans, more bizarre is that in the 21st century our Head of State should live on the other side of the world, visit here only seldomly, and that her heirs and successors should be presumed to have a right to continue in that office.
What seems to me, and other republicans, more bizarre is that in the 21st century our Head of State should live on the other side of the world, visit here only seldomly, and that her heirs and successors should be presumed to have a right to continue in that office.
Vive la republique!
No comments:
Post a Comment