Princely decision opens the door to fresh plebiscite
Your editorial is right to say we ought to dispense with the monarchy as head of state in the wake of Prince Harry and his bride quitting the royal family (10/1). It also correctly said that the institution of monarchy could not be more irrelevant to modern Australia and is an anachronism.
The lessons of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and the following referendum are that Australians must have proper and direct input into the model for a republic before the issue goes to referendum.
The result of the 1999 referendum was all about the model, not that Australia wanted to retain the monarchy as head of state.
Next time there must be plebiscite questions on the model so the most favoured model is put to the referendum for a decision. The 1998 model did not allow for direct election and had a flawed nomination and dismissal process and had less than 50 per cent support of the convention.
David Muir, chair, Real Republic Australia, Indooroopilly, Qld
Supporters of the British royalty may be aghast over Harry’s and Meghan’s decision to go it alone, but their move recognises contemporary reality and their individualism.
The pomp and ceremony associated with that institution is good for tourism and it recognises history and tradition. But it also represents a degree of social elitism and inequality by birth that should not be part of an ideal world.
And it is a straitjacket for its members because of conformism. Whatever all of the reasons underlying the decision to sever their links with the royal family, their decision should be applauded.
Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA
Perhaps Prince Andrew could offer some words of advice to his nephew, Prince Harry, based upon what he and his brother, Prince Charles, have experienced. All have been cocooned and pampered.
Crispin Walters, Chapel Hill, Qld
Harry and Meghan want to take all the material and financial benefits associated with their privileged position, but none of the responsibilities. What appalling role models.
Their decision to precipitously withdraw from official duties to “carve out” a life of their own — on the back of British taxpayers, in part — will only serve to accelerate the departure of the British monarchy from the social landscape. There are many who would say, not before time.
Michael J. Gamble, Belmont, Vic
What parasites Harry and Meghan are. This extremely privileged couple will never have to face the daily trials of an average family. They do not want to be average. What they want is the freedom to do what they want and when they want to do it with, of course, the fallback of money — a lot of money.
This selfishness is disgusting. It is typical of how out of touch these people really are. It’s time we cut our apron strings once and for all.
Chris Hemingway, Caboolture, Qld
Unlike Diana, Meghan was not 19 when she married Harry. She had already been married and was a seasoned actress. If her independence meant a lot to her, she should have shied away from becoming a member of the royal family. But perhaps the new role was too irresistible. Her performance during her marriage and afterwards deserve an Oscar.
It may be that the press was too intrusive. It may be that she felt slighted for whatever reason, but with position, wealth and privilege also go responsibility and sacrifices.
What is appalling is that they could not adhere to the Queen’s request and wait to make their announcement until all details had been sorted out.
It is easy to want to be financially independent, when Diana’s money would cushion their lifestyle. Whether in England or in Canada, the mainstream media and social media will continue to feed people’s interest.
B. Della-Putta, Thorngate, SA
The Queen was said to be blindsided by Harry and Meghan’s announcement that they were quitting the royal family while continuing to “fully support Her Majesty the Queen”.
Going public without telling her first is a very strange way of showing support. The Sussexes are in danger of losing their huge public goodwill.
Lindsay Dent, Campbelltown, SA