Charles comes next

BY any measure the royal tour so far of ‘Harry and Meghan’ has been a raging success for the monarchy and local monarchists.

Harry is the pick of the Windsors. He seems — like Shakespeare’s “Harry” or “Prince Hal” who becomes King Henry V — a wild party boy who matures into a beloved leader.

He seems like an earthy royal, even a little self-made, in touch with the real world despite his unconventional upbringing. With the beautiful celebrity actor duchess by his side hugging small children, you can see why some are claiming this fairytale pair will cause the delay and even death of an Australian republic.

But it’s not quite as simple as that. Our attachment to the English royals is different to what it used to be.

Elected parliaments rule England now and the monarchy is symbolic and ceremonial.

We increasingly believe in merit over dynastic inheritance, people power over centralised rule, and secular values over religious ones.

Strong Australian ties to the palace were once about shared wartime sacrifice under the Union Jack, about cultural inheritance and Anglicanism.

But as younger generations replace the old, the ties seem more based on the shared communal experience of following celebrity romances.

It remains open to Australia to keep the celebrity attachment to the young royals — they’re unlikely to vanish from the covers of women’s mags — while cutting constitutional ties that prevent a local being head of state.

But it is a long time since we had a PM willing to push the dry but worthy case for even a minimalist republic against the sentimental interest in royal weddings and babies.

Even Malcolm Turnbull seemed to have a monarchist conversion once elected PM, despite being a former chairman of the republic movement.

But dormant Republicans have a trump card. When the Queen passes on, Harry will not be king. Charles will. At that point a path to an independent national destiny will seem much clearer.