I have to wonder whether the BBC was having a laugh when they wrote that sentence. (Of course, here in America, Congressional Democrats once held a special hearing so that Jane Fonda, Jessica Lange, and Sissy Spacek could testify on US farming policy.)

Ordinarily, I'd see no urgency in deposing the Australian monarch. As with Canada, the powers of the head-of-state are virtually ceremonial except under extraordinary circumstances, the de facto head of state is a Governor General, and the Governor General is in practice a countryman chosen by the Prime Minister.

However, the present Queen is almost 82 years old, and the heir apparent is, uhm, Charles. (Canada is perhaps stuck with Charles. Canada became distinctively defined in terms of a rejection of independence for the British North American colonies. Little remains of that rejection beyond having the same monarch as does the United Kingdom.) Then again, have the republics really done respectable jobs of selecting heads of state? There have been and are greater fools than Charles occupying Presidential offices.

Tags: Australians, monarchy, republics

This entry was posted and is filed under commentary, ideology, news, public. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.