KING Charles's royal visit to Australia was marred by protesters – and his poorly received trip has sparked the question for many other Commonwealth nations, asking why the British monarch is still their head of state.
Although the majority of the 56 Commonwealth nations are republics, 15 still call Charles their king, with the remaining few once again questioning why the UK royal family represents them.
King Charles's visit to Parliament House in Canberra made headlines across the world on Monday, and not for the reason the British monarch would have wanted, as Senator Lidia Thorpe shouted, “you are not our king” as he sat down after his speech.
Thorpe, who is an independent Senator who sits in the Parliament, also shouted “this is not your land” before being escorted out of the room.
READ MORE: Subscribe for just £10 and get access to our brilliant Sunday National edition
Charles’s visit is his first tour of Australia since becoming king, where he is the head of state.
It was also the first time the reigning monarch had visited the country in 13 years.
The day after Thorpe accused him of “genocide”, Charles faced protests from Indigenous activists, where one elder told him their goal was “sovereignty”.
Among numerous protests held throughout the royal's visit, the Australian Republic Movement (ARM) held multiple demonstrations across the country which they called, Monarchy: The Farewell Oz Tour.
The group is one of the main republican bodies which advocates removing the British monarch as their head of state and replacing them with an Australian citizen.
“Like [Scotland], we’ve got a long-term focus on strengthening our democracy with an Australian head of state who is responsible and accountable only to us,” co-chair of ARM Esther Anatolitis said.
She added: “With crowd numbers very low compared to past royal tours, the vast majority of Australians confirmed that they continue to see the monarchy as irrelevant to modern Australia.”
According to ARM’s research the vast majority, 92%, of Aussies are open to becoming a republic.
The organisation’s research shows strong support for creating a head which actually represents who Australians are as a people.
ARM’s research also indicated that a decent proportion of Aussies reject the idea of being represented by an overseas monarch who inherits the role by birthright.
Co-chair for ARM Nathan Hansford said: “It's time we step confidently into the future, with a head of state who embodies our values, aspirations, and the vision we have for Australia’s place in the world.
“An Australian head of state will be there in times of celebration and heartbreak, helping to unify and strengthen our democracy, as well as driving our economy and jobs by promoting Australia around the world.
“In doing so, they will make Australia an equal on the world stage – a republic is about putting the power in the people’s hands to choose their leaders and to hold them to account.”
Australian campaigners aren’t alone in wanting to remove the British monarch as their head of state.
Earlier this year, Jamaica’s foreign minister said the country was on track to remove King Charles as its head by 2025.
Alando Terrelonge, a member of parliament and state minister, said the nation is gearing towards becoming a republic after more than 350 years of colonial rule.
Earlier this year he said: “I’ve always maintained that we owe it to our ancestors who fought and died so that we could be free, we owe it to the framers of our constitution, the work done by our national heroes, for Jamaica to now walk as truly liberated and independent.”
Jamaica isn’t the only Commonwealth nation where its representatives have signalled over the last couple of years they wish to have a referendum on becoming a republic.
Belize, Bahamas, Grenada, Antigua, St Kitts and Nevis all join Jamaica in suggesting they would like to remove Charles as their head.
Activists in Canada have been lobbying their government for a similar outcome.
Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR), a registered not-for-profit Canadian Corporation founded in 2002, has a self-proclaimed “different strategy” than the other republican movements by being more of a national lobby group than a membership-driven movement.
Director for CCR, Tom Freda (above), said the organisation wants someone to represent Canada who celebrates their culture and heritage internationally.
CCR makes a swathe of arguments as to why Canada should move to a republic – including King Charles not playing a constitutional role within the government.
The organisation argues there are effectively two heads of state, one who does all the work, and another “who gets the credit”.
They also say the monarchy is “incompatible” with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equality in every other jurisdiction.
“As it is now, as ridiculous as it sounds, no Canadian can be head of state of Canada,” Freda said.
READ MORE: Owen Jones: Why ITV's erasure of one pro-Palestine shirt says so much
He went on to explain: “First and foremost, we have the same beliefs about a non-resident head of state that our brothers and sisters in other Commonwealth realms do – it's the 21st century.
“Our constitutional attachment to a British monarch who resides on another continent simply doesn't make sense.
“We're a post-colonial, developed, First World, independent country and we should act like it by having one of our own democratically selected citizens as our head of state.”
Freda added that it is “lunacy” to share a head of state with countless different nations as he said: “One of countless examples of why this is unacceptable was made vividly clear in 1959, when Canada was hosting the Queen and Prince Philip.
“While in our province of Ontario, the royal couple crossed the border into the US to visit the Chicago International Trade Fair. Why? To promote British cars at the British Automobile Manufacturers Association exhibit.
“The fact that the Queen left the heart of Canada's automobile manufacturing in Ontario to go to the US to promote British cars just exemplifies the sheer lunacy of sharing a head of state with other countries.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel