When Australians rejected a move to a republic in 1999, some in the British press triumphantly proclaimed the Queen had won her first election.
Others argued the strength of the republican vote had only bought the monarchy time, and said the royals should offer to "go quietly before they appear to be pushed".
Sixteen years on, the republic debate is back on Australia's political agenda as Queen Elizabeth prepares on September 9 to surpass Queen Victoria as Britain's longest-serving monarch.
In 1999, the Queen was said to have been privately "hurt and disappointed" that after a lifetime of service, 45 per cent of Australians wanted her gone as head of state.
Publicly, then and since, she's always said it's a matter for the Australian people.
But one thing appears certain: any severing of the apron strings won't come until the Queen's reign is over.
Monarchist Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the question of a republic simply isn't a priority for his government, despite Treasurer Joe Hockey's leadership role in a cross-party parliamentary group pushing for a republic.
Labor leader Bill Shorten has declared Australia should become a republic with its own head of state within a decade.
But the suitably long lead time he's nominated all but guarantees any transition will come after the 89-year-old monarch's reign has ended.
Even the Australian Republican Movement, which this year relaunched its campaign for change, says the process should only "start" within the next five years.
The ARM's new poster boy - Fairfax columnist, author and former Wallaby forward Peter Fitzsimons - says that start should come in the form of one simple question to be put to the Australian people: "Do you support replacing the British monarch with an Australian citizen as the Australian head of state?"
"We reckon the 'yes' vote for that question will look like Phar Lap at Flemington, like (Don) Bradman at Lords - well ahead of the field and looking good," Fitzsimons told the National Press Club late last month.
Fitzsimons has been careful to frame his push for change as not a rejection of the Queen or a denial of Australia's history as a British colony, but as a bleedingly obvious next step in the life of the nation.
"This is evolution, not revolution," he later told AAP.
"This is not a rejection of the Queen and her family. It's an embrace of the idea that Australia is no longer a derivative of another nation, depending on the government of a motherland far over the seas."
He notes that 32 of the 50 countries in the Commonwealth are republics.
"They have managed to say 'OK, Great Britain, you are part of our heritage and we'll turn up to the Commonwealth Games and we'll be good friends, but we are mature enough to run our own affairs'."
Professor David Flint is the national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
In the run up to the 1999 referendum, he was front and centre, telling Australians that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And he insists a constitutional monarchy is still the right model for Australia's future governance.
He says there's inherent value in Australia retaining a head of state who is above the domestic political landscape, and believes voters are smart enough to see that for themselves.
"We're already a republic - a crowned republic. And it works very well," he tells AAP.
"The terrible thing is I don't think they are talking about improving the governance of Australia. What they really want is to concentrate more power into the hands of the political class."
He says the divisions that derailed the republican campaign in 1999 still exist, and there's still no one who can articulate a model that might mobilise Australians to back change.
Share
