In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, reproduced with his permission, Grant Agnew suggests we move the royals to Australia and let Britain have a Governor General. (Personally, I think it would be far easier to get rid of the lot of them).
The Daily Telegraph.
In an article in today's Courier-Mail (April 9, 'Not a royal mug to be seen here', p65), Professor John Warhurst of the Australian Republican Movement says that HRH Prince William "should not come within a bull's roar of being king of Australia".
On behalf of Australians who are for a constitutional monarchy, somebody has to harrumph with indignation about this, and it may as well be me.
Professor Warhurst forgets what Prince William said when he visited Australia just over a year ago — that he would serve Australia as long as Australians wanted him to. Well done, Sir, because service of us is exactly what we want. We want a king of Australia who will live here and appoint a Governor-General for Britain.
That way, we can show once and for all how good it is for country B to have its monarch on the other side of the world in country A, where he will take advice from the government of country A alone and will perform royal duties for country A alone.
After moving to country A, of course the monarch will make laws for country A which restrict country B's trade there, as well as the movement of country B's people. And it doesn't matter what the laws of country B may say about conflicts of interest. The monarch will make overseas visits to promote only the interests of country A, even though he is also king of country B.
The Courier-Mail article said that there are some republicans in Britain, so we'll have to expect them to use this as an excuse to grumble. But it's an ill wind which blows nobody any good. When King William V comes to live in Australia, all Australians for constitutional monarchy will loyally move to Britain, to tell the Brits how wonderful the system is and how grateful they should be for whatever insulting treatment they get.