It’s unlikely, but Australia should consider the possibilities.
Australia’s Head of State is King Charles III.
That means he’s the King of Australia. He’s also the King the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Some think Australia should change this arrangement to ‘reflect modern circumstances’. However, there is really only one imperative for Australia to consider an alternative.
Abolition
The United Kingdom has a republican movement. In the unlikely event that monarchy is abolished there, what becomes of Australia’s Head of State arrangements?
The answer to this question is for constitutional lawyers, and I have received some advice from eminent constitutional lawyer Professor Anne Twomey. Some obvious problems are apparent even to the lay person.
If the republican movement in the United Kingdom succeeds in getting a referendum on abolishing its monarchy, the clock will start clicking for Australia. It would trigger a vigorous debate about our Head of State arrangements. However, even without knowing the outcome of a referendum in the U.K., Australia is legally independent in respect to the monarchy. It will decide its own fate. A referendum would stimulate a great deal of thought here and some action would need to be taken. A hasty process would, I believe, yield poor results, despite the dress-rehearsal republic referendum of 1999. Therefore, it is useful to run some thought experiments in advance. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to King Charles III in this hypothetical, even though I think it’s highly unlikely to happen during his reign.
Our Head of State is not the Governor-General, as some believe. The G-G is the King’s representative in Australia, namely, his Viceroy – a sort of de facto Head of State who exercises all the powers of the monarch on his behalf. The King and Governor General are a part of Parliament as described in the first section of the Constitution. That can only be changed by referendum.
Should the King of the U.K. no longer exist, Parliament could make provisions in the short term until a referendum can be arranged.
The rules of succession are part of Australian law and cannot be affected (post Australia Acts) by anything done in the UK. The only issue would be the interpretation of covering clause 2, but if necessary that could be altered from within Australia through s 15 of the Australia Acts altering the the Statute of Westminster, which is what preserves the covering clauses.
Prof. Anne Twomey, email, 22nd September, 2026.
Covering clause 2 states,
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
Clause 2, Covering Clauses, Australian Constitution
Professor Twomey’s advice suggests that Parliament could decide who the successor is, whether or not the U.K. abolishes its monarchy. What options might parliament consider? Currently, with so few people thinking of anything other than an elected Head, it would be unlikely that (in the case of abolition in the U.K.) Mr Charles Windsor would be invited to be the King of Australia. Under those circumstances, if he accepted the title, it would make sense that he would relocate here.
Alternatively, an Australian with some claims to succession could be considered, such as the Earl of Loudoun, Simon Abney-Hastings. These options would entail the least change to the system.
The alternative is for parliament to legislate a process for appointing or electing a successor. However, while the constitution retains the ‘King’ and ‘Governor General’, it is difficult to see how such legislation could be a permanent solution.
Since the Imperial Conferences (1927 and 1932) the Crown became divisible among the King’s numerous Realms. The personal union of the British and Australian Crown means that although there is no separate physical Australian throne and crown, there is a legal one.
Concevably, therefore, ordinary Mr Charles Windsor, citizen of the Republic (or Commonwealth) of England (or Britain), residing in Britain, would still be King (Charles I?) of Australia. An interpretation of the constitution, would, I believe, indicate that he retains his authority here and so our Governor General could continue its duties.
However, it is unlikely that would be the end of it. Abolition of the monarchy in Britain would trigger a wave of consternation and controversy in Australia. Would the King (and his family) remain in England indefinitely? Much would depend on public opinion at the time and we would most likely go to a referendum. But what would the choices be?
Were the King to permanently relocate to Australia, the Governor General would no longer be required. The King could act directly for himself. Therefore, a constitutional amendment would be required.
Something like this happened in the early 19th century when Portugal was invaded by Napoleon and the King evacuated to his principal colony, Brazil. Eventually he returned to Portugal, but left his eldest son and heir, Pedro as Regent in Brazil. Pedro led an independence movement and became the first Emperor of Brazil.
Note, in case you’re wondering, most of the English Crown Jewels belong to the monarch, but they are held in trust for the nation (England). Therefore, how much of them would accompany an emigrating monarch would be a negotiated matter.
Although unlikely, a relocation to whatever Realm the King remains monarch of, would likely be a topic of discussion. Australia is one of 15 countries that are Commonwealth Realms. Arguably, we would be the most likely choice (over Canada and New Zealand), given the current monarch’s affection for us. However, the feeling is not unanimously mutual and even if the King were to do the migrant thing and expect his heirs to assimilate, I doubt this would warm the frozen hearts of republicans.
A Backup Plan
What are the other possibilities? We would be wise to delve into them well before it becomes imperative. Enough has been written about an Australian republic. If we truly value constitutional monarchy, we should rid ourselves of the false dichotomy that the only choice other than a British Constitutional Monarchy is an elected Australian Head of State. Republicans in Australia argue that Australia should ‘grow up’ and decide it’s own future. If that is so, then we should not be concerned about what other countries think of our choices. Therefore a referendum should include becoming either a republic or continuance of a constitutional monarchy in the form of a home grown Australian monarchy.
Modern Constitutional Monarchies
Constitutional monarchy is distinct in democracies across the world for the way it separates politics and the head of state. It is unique in providing an enduring, non-partisan persona for the nation to identify with. Its non-partisan character is due in no small part to the fact that the position is inherited, not elected.
Ultimately, a country’s constitution determines whether the Head of State is non-partisan, be it a President or a Monarch. However, in well-established democracies, the very fact of a monarch being unelected is what suits it [sic] so well to a symbolic, non-partisan and limited role. A President, however well the electoral system is designed to raise it [sic] above politics, is inevitably and inextricably tied up in electoral politics. I have written more extensively on the merits of constitutional monarchy versus a republic, HERE.
Monarchies are Made
Many constitutional monarchies have a long history of having evolved from early feudal states of monarchical autocracy. The survivors of this evolution have avoided overthrow in popular (and some not-so-popular) revolutions. England was one of them; although it became a republic from 1649 – 1660 (called the Commonwealth), parliament agreed to restore the crown.
The line of succession in almost all monarchies has been interrupted, either for political or religious reasons or through deception. Also, rules of succession have disqualified women and illegitimate offspring. The oldest continuous hereditary monarchy in the world, Japan, cannot verify direct ancestry to its original Emperor Jimmu:
Japan, considered a constitutional monarchy under the Imperial House of Japan, is traditionally said to have originated with the mythical Emperor Jimmu. The first verifiable historiographical evidence begins with Emperor Kinmei in the 6th century.[3].
Wikipedia
Constitutional monarchy has often been chosen as the preferred form of government. Some of these have been the product of a tug of war for power amongst aristocrats or between them and plebeian classes. The 16th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth introduced an elective monarchy, whereupon members of domestic noble families or external dynasties were elected to the throne for life. The Holy Roman Empire is perhaps the best known elective monarchy and the current ones include Cambodia, the Holy See, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. Most of these monarchs have too much power to be considered constitutionally limited by Australian standards. A life-long appointment (or until resignation, as in the case of Pope Benedixt XVI) has the monarchical advantage of a familiar and more readily identifiable leader, but the complication of requiring a method of election. Again, we’re not talking about self-appointed heads of state for life like Xi Jinping.
Brazil and Mexico became independent constitutional empires in the 19th Century. More recently Spain (1978) and Cambodia (1993) became constitutional monarchies.
In recent times, indigenous monarchical movements in Hawaii and New Zealand appear to have been modelled [sic] on and inspired by European monarchies, to bring some unity to people previously divided into smaller entities.
Monarchy Is Not All About Tradition
The merits of a modern constitutional monarchy are not tradition as such. A modern monarchy’s method of succession is an experience we all share and that ties us all to nature. We are all bound by the common experience of birth and death. It is, therefore, a connection to the present, as well as the past. The centrality of family in society is the basis of its modern legitimacy, when it is sanctioned by parliament.
At present, in the British monarchy, we have both tradition and modernity. The fact that it has persisted for so long is not peculiar, as Dennis Altman has described constitutional monarchies to be; it is for good reason. As a former republican, I can attest to this after a life time of probing the issue.
What would an Australian monarchy look like?
The unlikely scenario above should prompt Aussies to consider our Head of State arrangements. However, the possibility of abolition in the U.K. should also prompt us to appreciate what we have while we still have it. That it could be taken away from us, ought make us all the more cautious.
Too often a President is thought of as inevitable. It isn’t. Sleep-walking into such boring mediocrity is avoidable.
Whatever the circumstances are that cause Australians to vote at a referendum on our Head of State, some thought ought to be given to a home-grown monarchy.
Home-grown means the monarch must be Australian-born. Who are the likely candidates for a founding Australian dynasty? The decision would be consequential, but not as binding as some might think.
In my next installment, we will look at the options.
Leave a Reply