Guest guest59652 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Just read about the Queen's arrival into Australia. The Royal family have received a lot of negative press over recent times, but I am a big believer in history and what they represent. In the UK at least our tourism industry and some of our pride would be hit harshly without them. I was very proud to see pictures of her arrive in Australia. I was surprised however that the Australian PM did not curtsy the Queen. This is a normal greeting of respect to someone such as the Queen, especially as this could be her last official visit. 36% of Australians are in favour of a republic and 55% are still happy with the Queen and the current way of standing. My take is yes the government runs the country. The Queen is more of a symbol now that historically and in the UK interacts with the government whenever she makes speeches and still interacts with government. Obviously in modern times it would be very difficult to have this influence on Australian society. What I do think we should say is that the curtsy would have been nice. If there was no Queen - then who would be head of state. I have heard so much negativity about the current PM lately, yet many AUstralians would be happy for the President to be head of a republic. The Queen has no agenda and would not abuse this power, something leaders with a polital agenda may do. It also brings me to the point that Australian recent history is very much European. The Dutch and the English like it or not,and the knowhow of British governments in the past have created a lot of what Australia now has (controversial). One Australian comment - too many poms here these days. I thought to myself with the "Poms" and Brits what would this area of terrain be. It is great to see so many AUstralians respect the Queen still though and its great to think just over half still value her official standing - which is effectively a very hands off role but her opening the commonwealth meeting fills me with a great sense of pride. As for the lack of curtsy - it was not a great first impression I would have to say. She may have forgot - human error is something that can happen for sure. 10 day tour is pretty whistle stop but I think it is great she is here and that Prince William was here back in January: "God save the Queen" as the Queen of Australia. I am sure some people could not care less, or that whatever the standing it means little to them in everyday life, but in a young country its European descendents require some history and indeed context to its past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I'm not a big royalist but I would have respected the queens age, position and done a curtsey - because it would have been good manners. My 12 year old son surprised me last night by asking if we could go and see the Queen whilst she's in Perth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You have to remember you are looking at it from a Brit point of view not an Aussie one and we are many from many many different countries and these people do not look on her as their Queen. Although I like the Queen for me the Royal Family has had its day and apart from being a tourist attraction do not see any relevance to modern day life. Aussies have to get a visa to live in the UK just like all other aliens so why bother with a monarchy that does not recognise Aussies as citizens. Brits have to get a visa to live here etc just the same. If they could think of a good way of having a republic I am all for it now. I was living overseas when Britain entered the common market and forgot about Aus and NZ which at that time relied on Britain for its exports of meat and apples, took away so many people's livelyhoods. Aus has now found its own way and even though we will have ties we need to be on our own now. I feel for them having to come actually because I believe no matter how luxurious a plane can be its still a hard journey to make for people of their age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Good comment Petals. It does not matter about visas and citizenship on this one - thats just Australia's immigration control and is the same for all countries now. This country needs some connection to its past or you are taking away what comparatively little history it has. Australia is indeed very multicultural - and yes people might not look on her as their Queen. If Julia Gillard took the position over from the Queen at least she was born in Wales so some connection to the past. This post will evoke lots of different opinions which should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Just read about the Queen's arrival into Australia. The Royal family have received a lot of negative press over recent times, but I am a big believer in history and what they represent. In the UK at least our tourism industry and some of our pride would be hit harshly without them. I agree with Petals....understandably your view is from the limited point of view of a British person when addressing the Australian context. You mix the arguments for monarchy in Britain with the arguments in Australia as if they are interchangeable. Most people in favour of a republic think no ill will of the queen and have little opinion about monarchy in the UK and where that ends up. You may support what monarchy represents but I do not. It is undemocratic and props up privilege based on birth. This has no place in Australia. I was very proud to see pictures of her arrive in Australia. I'm sure you are as she is your queen not ours. I was surprised however that the Australian PM did not curtsy the Queen. This is a normal greeting of respect to someone such as the Queen, especially as this could be her last official visit. I think curtsy's to queens as a sign of subservience has no place in these times and should have been removed as a requirement by the royal family long ago to avoid embarrassment. 36% of Australians are in favour of a republic and 55% are still happy with the Queen and the current way of standing. My take is yes the government runs the country. The Queen is more of a symbol now that historically and in the UK interacts with the government whenever she makes speeches and still interacts with government. Obviously in modern times it would be very difficult to have this influence on Australian society. Around 70% supported a republic before the referendum. Obviously the republic vote was split in half so the motion failed. We had a ultra-conservative monarchist PM for a decade who vowed to influence peoples support of monarchy. They were effective but time will march on and the mismatch between reality and our institutions will continue to grate. What I do think we should say is that the curtsy would have been nice. If there was no Queen - then who would be head of state. ... The head of state would be a deserving Australian who earns the position through merit not birth. A head of state need not be an elected politician. That is but one model for a republic. It also brings me to the point that Australian recent history is very much European. The Dutch and the English like it or not,and the knowhow of British governments in the past have created a lot of what Australia now has (controversial). One Australian comment - too many poms here these days. I thought to myself with the "Poms" and Brits what would this area of terrain be. We all know she is the british queen not ours. She is British through and though. Your sentiments here about how much credit British govts/people deserve and downplaying of what the people here have done themselves is understandable but one more demonstration of why a foreign point of view from the other side of the world will never do. It is great to see so many AUstralians respect the Queen still though and its great to think just over half still value her official standing - which is effectively a very hands off role but her opening the commonwealth meeting fills me with a great sense of pride. Of course we respect her. Even republicans do. You know she can still open the commonwealth with Australia as a member even if we become a republic? As for the lack of curtsy - it was not a great first impression I would have to say. She may have forgot - human error is something that can happen for sure. 10 day tour is pretty whistle stop but I think it is great she is here and that Prince William was here back in January: "God save the Queen" as the Queen of Australia. I hope she has a nice time and arrives home safely. I am sure some people could not care less, or that whatever the standing it means little to them in everyday life, but in a young country its European descendents require some history and indeed context to its past. Given us some credit that we can remember context and our past. Has Britain remained German or Italian or Nordic because of its past. Why she we be condemned to a time warp which no longer represents who we are. Great countries like Britain and the US would never accept this situation and did not and moved with the times to keep themselves strong. So shall we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Fish - fair points well made. She is your Queen too - there are too many Australians reluctant to accept that until this country is much older will it truly have ousted any Britishness about it. Long live the Queen - your Queen - without British knowhow Australia would not be what it is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 And Fish like most european australians - go back a few generations and ull find your a pom at heart. That probably pains you - so yes the Queen and royalty is still truly yours too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The Queen is the head of state of Australia and should be afforded all respect and protocol should be followed. If Australians want to get rid of her as head of state they should do so, instead of petty crap like not curtsying. Having said that, an unelected president (even if nominated by parliament) is a stupid idea. No wonder the referendum failed. Whoever came up with that one was definitely a monarchist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyCoyles Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I am not British or Australian so can see it from both sides. My mother was from England and liked the Royals, if she was still alive she would have been happy with the latest Royal being a Middleton herself. I dont have a problem with either option but having the PM as head of state would be a bad idea, I would be more in favour of a President and PM as is the case in the Republic of Ireland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Fish - fair points well made. She is your Queen too - there are too many Australians reluctant to accept that until this country is much older will it truly have ousted any Britishness about it. It doesn't need to have "ousted any Britishness about it."...it is fine to have some britishness. But time has marched on and Australians are now independently Australian not British and Britain's institutions are no longer ours. Long live the Queen - your Queen - without British knowhow Australia would not be what it is today. The fact that you feel the need to repeatably reinforce this suggests your argument is based around your Britishness not what is in Australia's interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 And Fish like most european australians - go back a few generations and ull find your a pom at heart. That probably pains you - so yes the Queen and royalty is still truly yours too. You are again confusing the need for an Australian republic with anti-britishness. It is a common British mistake of relating the Australian debate into a British context. As Oprah might say, it is not all about you :wink: Let me make it clear from my point of view. We have no problem being founded by Britain. We will not be erasing our past. Britains history is our history. We will always be close cousins. We will remain a member of the Commonwealth as long as it remains relevant to us. It is not about you it is about us, and our health as a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 There is no confusion out there. I just think that it won't happen for a long time. I am seething at the lack of respect shown to our Queen - yes Fish your Queen to, whether you like it or not. The Australian nation is healthy with her as head of state, long live the Queen. If someone like Winston Churchill steps out into Australian government then yes I'd support it. It is a matter of respect - just can't believe no curtsy - no curtsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fish mate - no Queen - who do you want Julie Gillard as head of state. She needs to learn respect and meet Margaret Thatcher for 10 minutes. She can tell her a thing or too about respect and running a country not isolated from world affairds. End of Fish PERIOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldCoastMag Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Julia Gillard is not about to be head of state. As for the Republic debate, if the referendum had been worded differently the results would have been far more for the change. You cannot extrapolate the numbers as being in favour of the current monarchial system, as it was a skewed result. As for your being proud for being British, great, I am sorry you need to live in a foreign country but I am proud to live in Australia and be an Australian. Sorry to hear you are offended at the lack of a curtsey, I am sure our PM was informed of protocols, and if a curtsy was not considered necessary, why are you offended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I think curtseying is way too old fashioned and if the Royals have good knees and want to do it then they can as for me and anyone else who does not want to then don't. No disrespect at all just old fashioned and enforces class system which is also no longer relevant in my view. Why the British Royal Family are not like their royal relatives in Europe is beyond me. What is so royal about them After all our present royal family are Johnny come lately's in the theme of things royal. Other European royal families go back much further and so do Eastern rulers. I mean you can grow up in an ordinary house marry a prince and become a person to be curtsied to what is that all about. :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Goldcoast mag - points well made. I live in our commonwealth. I do not need to live overseas, one is broad minded enough to work and travel. As for the lack of curtsy - well it just shows Australia as lacking morals and trying to make a statement. At the end of the day it won't make the news past here and the UK - Australia is isolated and utterly irrelevant in world terms so good on her for not showing the suggested protocol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyCoyles Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 As for your being proud for being British, great, I am sorry you need to live in a foreign country but I am proud to live in Australia and be an Australian. There is nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from. That wont change if Australia becomes a republic, it would just be the same as British ex-pats living in America. I dont see the connection between proud of where you come from and this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleabo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't think Betty will give two hoots as to whether Joolya curtsied or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Since I have been here, I have received so much negative vibes from Australia about poms and Britishness. We set up a country for them (with British knowhow no less). I was proud before I travelled to work here, and I am even prouder. Little do they realise until Australia is at least 1,000 years old can they indeed be judged historically. I said one day to an Australia - your almost as English as me fella if you think about it. In fact what is Australian - in my opinions there are native Australians and Australians of European heritage - majority English, then German, Dutch, Italian, Greek etc. So a little bit more respect gold coast mag - remember where you came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Constitutional Monarchy versus Republic. Which particular republican system should we have in Australia? We already have an excellent system inherited from Britain (with a few American touches added to suit a federal form of government.) Do we really need to break something that is already fixed? Stupid question with this current Labor Government. Look what Rudd, Gillard & Swan have done so far. Fixed the 'broken' system of dealing with boat people set up by John Howard. Fixed the 'broken' system of a massive financial surplus set up by Costello. Republicans assume that, once the republic is achieved, job done, but what guarantees do they offer that our lives will be improved? Australia did not even HAVE to become an independent nation. Things could have developed in a different way and Australia could have remained a self-governing colony or it could have sent MP's to Westminster. New Zealand could have joined the original Australian Federation. There was a plan for it to do so. Would that have been wrong? Would it have been bad for NZ? In terms of distance, it is actually closer to Canberra than WA. Should WA become an independent country because of its great distance from Canberra. Should Tasmania become independent because it is an island? The bottom line is that many Australians are happy with their present form of government. They are intelligent enough to look around the world and see what cock-ups we could be experiencing, even in democracies. Look at countries like Italy for example. Australia grovels to nobody, least of all Britain. Nor do Canada and New Zealand. We just have a shared history and a shared form of government. If you want to get a sense of this, go to Parliament in Canberra and look at the copy of Magna Carta which was signed, when? Oh, 1215. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Gorgeous post Mary Rose. Points made in a gorgeous manner. Yes Australia need not grovel to anyone it indeed has independence. It does indeed take bits of the American system - why not say it be United States of Australia too. It is young so yes it can learn, yes it can thrive and yes it does well. This debate is stimulating, general and to a point is dealing with a real issue at the moment. It is a system that works and changing these things might have little effect, it might however need to minor society changes which spark issues that one never thought possible. This is a lovely thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldCoastMag Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Goldcoast mag - points well made. I live in our commonwealth. I do not need to live overseas, one is broad minded enough to work and travel. As for the lack of curtsy - well it just shows Australia as lacking morals and trying to make a statement. At the end of the day it won't make the news past here and the UK - Australia is isolated and utterly irrelevant in world terms so good on her for not showing the suggested protocol. She did follow suggested protocol "PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has defended her decision not to curtsy when she met the Queen on her arrival in Australia. Ms Gillard and ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher are under fire from some royalists for not greeting the Queen yesterday in the manner which they believe is customary. The Prime Minister says she received advice from protocol staff that the formality was optional. Ms Gillard says she shook the Queen's hand and bowed her head.", Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59652 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 She defended the action - should be no need for a defence. I get the point about the curtsy - it would just be good to teach the young children about respect for senior figures. Her not curtsying to someone who (whether we like it or not) commands respect is like saying to a child on their everyday level there is no need to respect your parents. It's a ladder that starts at the top and us mere mortals follow at our level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fish mate - no Queen - who do you want Julie Gillard as head of state. She needs to learn respect and meet Margaret Thatcher for 10 minutes. She can tell her a thing or too about respect and running a country not isolated from world affairds. End of Fish PERIOD. "End of" your coherent arguments ? :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landv Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why did you get so offended about the fact that the PM didn't curtsy to the queen? We're not in the 18th century anymore, it is such an outdated and subservient gesture. There are other ways to be respectful to the queen and other royals than curtsying, I certainly don't think that in this day and age we should curtsy to anyone. It really is a matter of choice now and it is not mandatory anymore. Check this out www.elegantwoman.org/royal-etiquette.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.