Here is a comment that keeps being removed automatically from Youtube comments to the Constitutional Clarion. I am publishing is here and will try to post a link to Youtube comments (but it still doesn’t work)
***
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you, Professor Twomey
You mention in an article “The Queen of Australia” from 2007
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SGSocUphAUCon/2007/12.html
“Some of the confusion about the status of the Crown arises because the same term is used to describe a number of different concepts. As the High Court pointed out in Sue v. Hill, the different meanings of Crown include:
1. The Sovereign’s regalia;
2. The body politic;
3. The international personality of a body politic;
4. The “government” or “executive”; and
5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to a body politic.”
I assume these are some of the range of different meanings of the Crown in Australia.
The Australian body politics are modern democracies. Some people may feel embarrassed about the meanings of the ‘Crown of Australia’ as they also refer to 1. the Sovereign’s regalia (symbols of monarchy), and 5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to a body politics. They seem to conflict or contrast with the other meanings (2, 3, & 4).
Perhaps we could image a purely hypothetical future where Australia has replaced the monarchy with democratic rules of succession so that an Australian is elected to serve a fixed term in office as head of state to replace the monarch – under the divisible Crown of Australia only. We keep the Crown of Australia, make it democratic for elected fixed terms, and leave everything else as it is.
The elected head of state would be head of state for the Commonwealth and all six states simultaneously. The biological ‘person’ elected as Australia’s head of state provides the personal unity of the Crowns in Australia, just as the monarch does with the notion of a divisible Crown for the realms. The elected head of state must abide by long-standing Westminster conventions to remain above politics and the office would be purely ceremonial.
In that hypothetical future, the meaning of 1. the Sovereign’s regalia will morph into symbols of Australian democracy, and meaning number 5. The Sovereign’s powers with respect to the body politics will become the elected head of state’s powers with respect to the body politics. All five meanings of the Crown in Australia listed in Sue vs Hill 1999 would become congruent and will affirm Australia as a modern democratic nation.
The ‘Crown of Australia’ would no longer be cringe-worthy, but be seen as highly valued and esteemed in our democratic system of government. The Crown would no longer be viewed as something like a chameleon.
The elected head of state would be seen as the face of Australia’s international personality as a body politics. I think it would work.
If anyone is interested in an an outline for an Australian republic where we try to democratise the ‘Crown of Australia, here is a link:
https://7gs.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Ugly_Duckling_20250105.pdf