What Australian women think about the royal family

[AcrossTheGrain]

I fell down a rabbit hole on an Australian women's forum last night and ended up reading pages of a long-running royal thread. It was honestly quite something seeing how the RF looks from that far away.

They go from talking about velvet dresses and very over-the-top earrings to being incredibly blunt about Charles, the Duchies, Andrew, and the money side of things. No dancing around it at all - they just say exactly what they think.
There’s a bit of NHS talk too, more in a “how does this all appear from the outside?” way, especially when the health system here is struggling while the monarchy still looks so well funded.

Plenty of strong views on William/Kate vs Harry/Meghan as well - it seems to be a full contact sport over there too.

If anyone wants a look, this is the page I landed on.

Made me wonder if Australians are just saying out loud what a lot of people here think but don’t quite say.

I think most people are apatethic. Most rage is to the politicians and the royal family is a fly, does it makes sense? The royals aren't loved, get eyes rolls, but they are a minor concern. As far I know they aren't wanted, but they aren't a major concern in daily life. If you ask most women younger than boomer generation they don't like the royals and what it represents, with a very minority liking the bling and gossips. Above boomers generation there's mixed feelings. That's what I observed.

I have three daughters and friends of all ages and while the royal family is not really thought about have to disagree that they are not liked.I find if you talk about the royals there is a more positive attitude to certain royals and others not so much!

The Australian Prime Minister expended a lot of political capital on the recent referendum on the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament. Sadly it failed and he has said he is not going down that road again.
My young adult DC were astonished by the impact of the Queen's death here - parliament shut for 2 weeks, we had a day off in recognition etc. they are both quite politically aware but much more focused on politicians and policy. It seems so remote to have a head of state from another country that many people just don't give it thought.

Because we don't care.

I care.

I do think more Australians would feel more strongly in favour of a republic if more knew about what happened during the period leading up to the 1975 Whitlam government dismissal.

Personally, I want a republic but I really don’t want an elected HoS. Just an appointed one who can be dismissed at any time.

But my feeling is that few Australians have the heart for a referendum at this time. The last one - the Voice to Parliament - was so divisive and there was so much misinformation, and disappointingly the majority of Australians voted no.

I don’t agree that Australians ‘don’t care’. I just think there are more immediate concerns.

As an Australian I don't particularly want a Republic. It feels right to me to as our history is so closely tied with Britain and we remain members of the Commonwealth. I'm 53 so perhaps older but I was such a big fan of the Late Queen and her sister and Mother. I've probably got rose coloured glasses on when looking at this issue but I love that we have a Royal Family. As for Everybump it used to be Essential Baby and I was a member there 25 years ago and it is much much smaller now and there is a definite greens/left bent to it with some issues completely out of bounds (ie transgender topics). Its boring as batshit hence me coming over here to have a chatter.

Becoming a republic does not mean we will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. We will remain a member nation.

Plus, not everyone looks so favourably on the history of British government in Australia.

What is your generation? Bit of a sweeping statement. You mean you and your buddies?

Most Australians I know think - if it is not broke don't fix it.

They are not trusting politicians to do as well what the royal family is successful at - diplomacy and uplifting worthy causes and people down on their luck.

The Australian Monarchist League has had increased support
.
Last time there was a referendum on the royal family it was defeated. People like the stability of the Australian Westminster government system.

I don't know anyone who would like a President.
Our Prime Minister is elected and has all the power anyway.

Personally, my younger family members like William and Kate and Zara and George and see the royal family as a familiar family of interest. King Charles loves Australia.

I've heard only good things about him, and Camilla's voice and work for women's causes..
Many Australians love the environment; the King is on the same page.

Whitlam chose a very poor Treasurer.
Whitlam had revolutionary vision and introduced great things for education that still prevail but the Treasurer was not trusted at all.

Anyway it went back to a vote of the people within weeks and Whitlam was soundly defeated.

I wonder what would have happened if he had not appointed his Treasurer. Would Whitlam have gained back trust of the majority?

Australians don't have to pay anything towards the monarchy apart from when they decide to visit which is relatively rare. So really it doesn't seem to matter. If we were paying towards their lifestyle etc maybe I'd care more.

Be that as it may, do you think it was appropriate for the late Queen to give advice about a double dissolution - to encourage - the governor-general and the the leader of the opposition (they planned it together - also the gg was is appointed by the government, not the opposition) and very quickly after that, the media? It isn’t okay because that is not the British Monarch’s job in Australia.

Do you think it’s okay to mess with the constitution and a stable government like that?

The Liberal party refused to pass Supply and this is what allowed them to force the situation. Once the double dissolution was called the governor general -a drunken buffoon publicly disgracing himself by being drunk in public & falling over drunkenly at official events, installed the opposition government led by Frasier. That was unheard of.

Whitlam bought us Medicare, free tertiary education, increased child endowment payments, no fault divorce and so on. The difference to my life and my children’s life was positive.

The irony is, Frasier then went on to continue to implement Whitlam’s agenda in order to improve Australians living standards.

The whole thing was a travesty of our constitution. Very dangerous. It could happen again. As nothing has been changed that could prevent it.

PS it could have gone back to the polls without dismissing Whitlam. The GG appointing Frasier and the Liberals the caretaker govt was constitutionally unprecedented.

Whitlam, as head of the Armed Forces, was well within his rights to call out the military to stop what was a very dodgy transference of power. If Australia been stuck with someone Trump like you can bet that is what would likely have happened.

A dangerous unstable time in Australia due to a bunch of people that wanted conservatives in power.

edited to say both of my posts were in response to @user1492757084 ‘s post Australia had a bad treasurer at the time.

I agree. I think in Australia andcthe UK most people ( especially the under probably 60's) just dont care enough about them. Most dont even know the extended family from what I can see. Its what's keeping them on the Throne.

The late queen did not give advise or encourage a double dissolution. That is false and the release of the palace papers shows it.

And Whitlam had no powers to arrest or otherwise curtail the governor-general and, very sensibly, did not attempt to do so because it would be unconstitutional.

theconversation.com/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government-142376

I can totally understand someone on the other side of the world being a fan of QE2... she did her duty for 70 years after all.
But Margaret? She lay in bed till 12 noon when she was fixed a dry martini by a maid, and in her heyday was having multiple affairs with very young men whilst married. She was an unpleasant snob and enjoyed putting others down.
As for the Queen Mother... less said the better.

But Margaret? She lay in bed till 12 noon when she was fixed a dry martini by a maid, and in her heyday was having multiple affairs with very young men whilst married. She was an unpleasant snob and enjoyed putting others down.
As for the Queen Mother... less said the better.

All of this and adding E2 sticking her head in the sand in relation to Mr MW's many misdeeds and dodgy associates until forced into action then demonstrating unwavering support for him in the face of public opinion.

There was a referendum in Australia on becoming a republic yonks ago. But the then current Prime Minister was a staunch royalist, and basically, the option that was offered (no choices were offered) was a republic where the government of the day would pick the head of state in a republic. Given how governments of both major parties are notorious about sourcing "jobs for the boys" that would have meant former pollies getting turns to swank around, and bleed public funds a bit more.

Frankly, if we were to ever have a republic, I would like to ban anyone who has played a role in public life to be automatically excluded from consideration for the role. In fact, we might as well just have a national draw (excluding the aforementioned) and pick someone that way. It would certainly add excitement to the whole process,

Sadly that didn't work with the 1999 Refererendum, which was only 24 years after The Dismissal and 16 years after the excellent TV programme. It should still have been reasonably fresh in people's minds.

There were some interesting reasons being bruited about for its failure. One that interested me as I lived in an area with a very high post war migrant pop, was that post WWII migrants that came to Australia as displaced persons saw Australia's long-term political stability as being due to the continuity provided by the RF.

Could you name some of these 'multiple young men' with whom she was having affairs? Roddy Llewellyn, yes. Who else? Where is your proof?
I think you have multiple affairs with young men.

That article was from 2020

This is from 11November 2025.

It’s a 7 minute listen. Whitlam

www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/changing-australia-jenny-hocking-finding-truth-whitlam-dismissal/105993206

This article names a few of the men she was linked with during her marriage:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/princess-margaret-birthday-love-life-30746611?error=true

It's quite likely indiscretions were more easily swept under the carpet in the more deferential era of the 60's and 70's at least until the scandalous liaison with a man 20 years her junior couldn't be hushed up.

That Royal Family thread (and the one before it, and the one before that) is a goldmine of phrases lifted straight from trash magazines that the Aussie have obviously been consuming for decades.

Multiple affairs with very young men.?

The Mirror? 'Rumoured' it said. Not definite then, unless someone from the Mirror was always with her. The double-barrelled name - yes, I think so. Peter Sellers? - he was definitely not a very young man but if he and Britt Eckland had a foursome with PM and Lord Snowdon I wouldn't be surprised. I can't remember the other two names, but the words 'multiple affairs with very young men' is an exaggeration, I think. I suppose you want it to be, on purpose, like a screaming tabloid headline suggesting sexual intercourse with 62 seventeen-year-olds, without ever saying it.
I notice that the people who constantly want to pull the RF down on these threads often rely on exaggeration and personal invective.
As a matter of interest, what do you know about Anthony Armstrong Jones's sex life which neither she nor the general public knew about when she married him in 1960. Did you watch the wedding? How old were you then?

I'd lay in bed drinking martini's with young men if I could lol.