Many feared (or hoped) that when the late Queen Elisabeth passed away, the British Monarchy of the Windsor dynasty would have its days numbered.
And in many ways, these ‘worst-case scenario’ fears (other people’s hopes) seem to have become an actual possible outcome, as the relentless infighting in the Royal family and the apparent lack of relevance of their work to the present-day reality of Britain are a constant object of debate.
Now, reports arise that ailing King Charles has stated that ‘he will not stand in the way’ if Australia wishes to replace him as the country’s head of state.
Ahead of his visit down under later this month, the Monarch is said to be adopting a soft, ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to the Australian republican campaigners.
“In response to the Australian Republican Movement’s (ARM) request for a meeting with the monarch, the king’s assistant private secretary is understood to have emphasized his ‘deep love and affection’ for Australia.
Nathan Ross reportedly told the anti-monarchists: ‘His majesty, as a constitutional monarch, acts on the advice of his ministers and whether Australia becomes a republic is, therefore, a matter for the Australian public to decide’.
The ARM says it is ‘the peak body advocating on behalf of the Australian people for an Australian republic with an Australian as our head of state’. Australia held a referendum in 1999 on the issue of becoming a republic, in which 54.9% voted against.”
Hellbound and Down 
I’ll bite: Slightly on topic, Australia becoming a “republic” is bullsh*t.
They will become a country of petty tyrants, just lacking a king.
They proved this during “tha’ ‘Rona times”.
LikeLiked by 1 person