Royalty - a man's game
This is my first post to my new blog. The impetus for creating this blog was when the Courier Mail, the main Queensland newspaper, would not publish my Letter to the Editor. If they won't publish my views then I'll have to find other ways to get my message out on the need for an Australian republic.
Below is the Letter to the Editor I sent to the Courier Mail on 13 January 2006 detailing one of the many absurdities of Australia retaining the British monarch as our Head of State. The theme of this blog will be recording why Australia should have "A Mate as Head of State".
Royalty - a man’s game
A decision this week by the British House of Lords upholds a system which supports the idea that a woman can only be trusted for the top job when there are no men available.
The British Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has dismissed suggestions that the British Government remove existing right of male heirs to the throne taking precedence over female heirs.
Monarchists support keeping constitutional monarchy in Australia. Do they also support propping up this absurd fiction that women are only suitable for our top job when there are no men available?
To deny women the same rights of succession to the throne as men underscores the absurdity of Australia's continuing links to the British monarchy.
This decision – which impacts upon the rules determining Australia's Head of State – has been made in Britain, by a British politician, with no consultation with Australia.
This reinforces, once again, that its time that we had one of our own as Head of State. One determined on merit, not gender and birthright.
Australia first granted women the vote and the right to stand in elections as early as 1894, but over one hundred years later we can only have a woman as our Head of State if she lacks a Brother. This is the case with Queen Elizabeth II.
We need to remove such discriminatory and archaic ideas and allow my daughter the opportunity to be Australia’s Head of State.