As the king arrives in Australia for the first time as head of state, republican rumblings are once more on the media radar.
Will it be, as the Australian Republic Movement (ARM) optimistically opines, the monarchy’s “farewell tour”?
Should the fact all six state premiers are unable to personally attend a Canberra reception for Charles and Camilla be interpreted as an “insult” and a “snub”, as Australian monarchists allege?
Will the British royal family’s relationship with this distant dominion change following the death of Queen Elizabeth II?
Royal visits to Australia consistently concentrate minds on the status of the institution’s role in the country’s constitutional affairs.
So the fact the king has said that whether or not Australia moves to become a republic is a matter for Australians has made headlines.
In response to a letter from the ARM last year, one of Charles’s private secretaries wrote: “Please be assured that your views on this matter have been noted very carefully. His majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his ministers, and whether Australia becomes a republic is, therefore, a matter for the Australian public to decide.”
Released by republicans before this week’s royal tour, it has been seized on by anti-monarchists.
In fact, said Dr Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Royal Holloway, University of London, there was little else the king could have said. The royal family, as implied in Charles’s response to the ARM, has no say, constitutionally.
“Fundamentally it is for Australia to decide who its head of state should be and whether to continue with the king of Australia. We saw this in the 1999 referendum. It was an Australian decision to hold the referendum, effectively Australians decided. So the royal family, or Buckingham Palace, don’t have a role. They will stick with what Australia decides, if Australia ever ask the question again,” Prescott said.
A Buckingham Palace spokesperson has said: “Like his mother before him, it has always been the case that his majesty the king feels that it is a matter for the Australian people.”
Charles’s response mirrors that of his late mother, who in March 2000, speaking at the Sydney Opera House after the referendum in which the vote was to keep her, said: “I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise.”
As far back as 1994, when Charles as Prince of Wales gave a speech in Sydney on Australia Day, he acknowledged growing pressure for constitutional reform, with the words: “The point I want to make here, and for everyone to be perfectly clear about, is that this is something which only you – the Australian people – can decide. Personally, I happen to think that it is the sign of a mature and self-confident nation to debate those issues and to use the democratic process to re-examine the way in which you want to face the future.”
Rising republican sentiment across the Commonwealth realms has been similarly addressed. Prince William, on a 2022 visit to the Caribbean, told guests at an official dinner: “We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future.” He added: “Relationships evolve. Friendship endures.”
Charles was a guest at the Barbados ceremony of transition to a republic. “And gave it tacit support: if that’s the decision of the people of one of the Commonwealth realms then we will support that and facilitate the transition, and do it with best wishes,” said Prescott, the author of the forthcoming book Modern Monarchy. “This is the consistent line you get from Buckingham Palace and, ultimately, from the British government.”
The king and queen’s Australian tour, on their way to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Samoa, sees them visit Sydney and Canberra in the first visit to the country by a British sovereign since 2011.
They will be hosted by the Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, who has himself previously voiced strong support for the country becoming a republic, saying: “Australia should have an Australian as our head of state.”
A poll published in Australia’s News Corp newspapers this week showed support for Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy at 45%, compared with 33% support for becoming a republic and the rest undecided.
Whatever Charles’s private views he will stick to the tried and tested line, as he is constitutionally bound.
Prescott said: “You can discuss if it would be a bad thing if many of these countries became republics. It might not be a bad thing for the British monarchy.” It would be consistent with the king’s wish for a slimmed-down monarchy. “How often can a slimmed-down royal family visit the 14 Commonwealth realms where the king is also head of state? Perhaps not as often as might have been the case 10, 20, 30 years ago.”
Historic ties have loosened since the late Queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1952.
“If you think about the monarchy today and you think about the countries we are talking about, the generation of politicians you have today in those countries just don’t have that same guttural link with the crown, or with Britain,” he added.
