Australia: 68% support a republic, 40% want William as King
The Sydney Morning Herald reports:
A survey of 1000 readers of The Sun-Herald and The Sydney Morning Herald last week shows 40 per cent think William should be the next monarch ahead of Prince Charles.
But only 3 per cent said the engagement affected the way they felt about whether Australia should become a republic; 68 per cent said Australia should become a republic, and 25 per cent said it should not.
More than half of respondents, 56 per cent, said it should happen as soon as possible, and 31 per cent said it should be after the Queen dies.
Sadly there's no exact details on the question asked (68% does seem high). Nevertheless, this is a good sign that the public understands that if Australia were a republic on 29 April 2011, William and Kate would still be getting married. The Royal family is British, and so are their occasions - they have precious little to do with us.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
The Royal family is British, and so are their occasions - they have precious little to do with us.
Your oft repeated refrain is used again at the end of this post on the results of an Australian poll. Just how are the results of this Australian poll (asking unrevealed questions) reflective of NZ opinion? Or are you actually posting from an Australian point of view? Also, the Royal family is the New Zealand Royal family. They are New Zealanders.
You say that the Royal family "have precious little to do with us " perhaps the people involved with RMNZ should expend their energies on a cause which actually has something to do with us then?
The Royal family is British. The opponents of a New Zealand republic claim they are New Zealanders. They're wrong, and the public knows it.
I know you'd very much like it if we put our efforts elsewhere. But for us, this issue isn't about the Royal family. They're irrelevant, despite the desperate attempts at showing they are. This issue is about an independent head of state for New Zealand, nothing more, nothing less.
despite the desperate attempts at showing they are.
This is really bizarre as the desperation evinced is by the use of the results of an Australian poll as a reason to trot out the mantra of Royal irrelevance to NZ. An irrelevance that justified the post in the first place I guess!
Um, no. The Royals didn't justify this post, an Australian poll did. Oh, but I love your spin on a poll showing the Royals to be irrelevant makes them relevant because we're talking about them. Well played sir!
And sure, by "us" I was probably meaning "Australians", but it's a real stretch to say that New Zealanders do care on that basis.
You'll notice we don't comment on irrelevant issues like the wedding date, cake or any other trivial matter pushing real issues that actually affect New Zealanders off the agenda.
Arguing that Monarchy and the royals are irrelevant is self-defeating, as there will always be a relevant issue needing to be dealt with in preference to dealing with the monarchy's place in the constitution.
You'll notice we don't comment on irrelevant issues like the wedding date
Let me get this straight....the royal wedding is actually relevant? But the date, cake etc are not. The wedding is not exactly dominating the NZ agenda at the moment, and I doubt if anything is being pushed off. It may be in the gossip mags as some people to like to have some light relief from the the world events they can otherwise read about in the media
And sure, by "us" I was probably meaning "Australians", but it's a real stretch to say that New Zealanders do care on that basis.
Sure it would be...we'll have to wait for a NZ poll then. Maybe someone will think the issue is relevant in NZ.
The Royals are irrelevant - the monarchy as a constitutional issue is relevant, largely because it's actually constitutionally irrelevant to New Zealand. It's a useless appendix. The issue for us is about an independent head of state for New Zealand. Constitutionally New Zealand operates as a de facto republic, with a de facto head of state in the Governor-General. The Royals constitutional interaction with New Zealand is almost totally non-existent apart from appointing the Governor-General on the Prime Minister's exclusive and binding advice; their social interactions are limited to public relations events and the odd statement.
*facepalm* No, the wedding is not relevant to us either. We clearly said that in our media release. There is no constitutional requirement for the Sovereign to be married, or even to produce a heir. There is a constitutional requirement in New Zealand law that bars anyone not in communion with the Church of England from the throne, as the monarchy is a discriminatory and sexist institution... we can't allow those evil Catholics on the throne again can we, lest they form an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire can we Bill!?
Sure, just as the imminent wedding of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie provides light relief., or any other celebrity. But as I've said above: if New Zealand (or Australia) is a republic on 29 April 2011, the wedding will still happen. If what you're saying is correct, that there is relevance to New Zealand, then surely that would not be the case.
I'm yet to see anything showing that New Zealanders attitudes are any different from Australians. In fact the polling published so far confirms that our attitudes are no different.
Post new comment