RE the comment piece “Baby, wedding are crown jewels for monarch” (Opinion, May 2).
Rachel Bailes feels there is no convincing or concrete case for a change to an Australian republic.
I am fascinated by the history of the monarchy, and enjoy as much as anyone watching what the royals do.
However, there is no escaping the fact that as the Queen is the Head of State of Australia (as would be her heirs), she is not an Australian.
As confirmed by DFAT Protocol Guidelines 1.1 her powers are exercised on her behalf by the Governor General.
Why can’t my children, Rachel’s children, or any Australian aspire to, and be able to become, the Head of State of their own country?
When Prince Charles attends trade exhibitions he supports British industry, not Australian.
When Prince William is at the Rugby World Cup he barracks for England, not Australia.
When Prince Harry goes to the Ashes cricket he cheers for the English, not Australia.
Many countries within the Commonwealth are already republics, and I don’t see why someone who is fortuitously born into an extremely privileged lifestyle on the other side of the world, no matter how gregarious, intelligent or popular, has automatically got a right that no Australian has.
If there is to be any “constitutional waves” to ride, to put it in terms that Australians would understand – I hope that the constitutional monarchy is out the back, whilst an Australian Head of State and republic is taking off on the face.
David Chamberlain, Woronora Heights
