Traditions and pretty parades make for exceptional soft power opportunities, something the UK punches far above its weight in. Getting a visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was probably the one force that could outshine a visit from President Obama. Getting a state visit from the Queen is part of major diplomatic wrangling, she doesn't just pick a country and go "that seems like a nice place to visit".

Edward VII played a large role in setting the conditions for the Entente Cordial, in large part by partying a lot in France - activities a politician could never get away with even today. That cultural and ambassadorial role set the scene for the end to a 1000 years of Anglo-French conflict. More recently the current Queen has played major roles in healing the divisions of conflict, most recently with her trip to the Republic of Ireland.

Elderly politicians are still divisive in their election, regardless of whether they're elected by the public or some body. Their actions have to be viewed through the prism of political cynicism and the potential for advancing the interests of their party. Whereas a 90 year old woman who still carries out a punishing schedule of public duties presents a far more inspiring example of duty and loyalty. If no-one voted for you then you are beholden to no-one.

Cynical you may be, but your case doesn't apply to Australia (I can understand your perspective though!).

The Australian constitutional referendum was cleverly constructed to keep the monarchy. TWO republican options were offered in order to split the republican side, and both were engineered for short-term aggrandizement of politicians rather than give the country a sound constitution. So a "first, do no harm" strategy ended up with the most votes.

I think a system like the Germans have is pretty reasonable (though more complicated than Australia needs with only a handful of states none with a huge amount of autonomy). Then again, Australia really only needs a head of state to appoint a PM and greet visiting potentates. Apart from that there isn't much need for a GG. Oh and to consume fancy bird feathers.

Like many I chose "The changes on offer are worse than no change at all."

Actually, only one option was offered at the referendum [1] (president selected by 2/3 majority of parliament). Various options were considered at an earlier constitutional convention, but only 1 was on the ballot.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum...

Thanks, I should be more careful about posting in the middle of the night.

The problem is, there are likely to be multiple competing proposals, and even if they aren't on the ballot at the same time, they create a lot of uncertainty. Many voters will choose to avoid that uncertainty by voting to keep the monarchy.

At this point, the monarchy is the default position, and I think it will stay that way until the monarch does something to piss off the majority of the Australian people.

Thanks for the info! Had no idea about this.

Also, FWIW: My grandmother held on almost to 100 in the hopes of getting a letter from the Queen (telegrams were already gone by then). She saw no inconsistency in that desire and her otherwise rather socialist, republican sentiments.

> "Good for tourism" is another one.

Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.

Maybe Australia should add a hereditary upper house, then.

Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.

You do know the upper house in the UK is made not only of Hereditary peers but professionals or experts in their respective fields. They are of course nominated and appointed instead of being elected - but that sounds silly to have actual professionals & scientists in the decision making process of making laws.