THERE has been unseemly sniggering from Australians delighted to be the Queen’s subjects following the appointment of republican Kim Beazley as Governor of Western Australia.

The Australian Monarchist League couldn’t help itself in a press release: “AML congratulates Kim becoming Queen’s man.”

However, it’s misdirected scoffing as it's the monarchists who have copped a kick in the sovereign area.

Australians who insist on living in the 21st century would realise the AML and courtiers just don’t get it in their reply to the Beazley appointment.

It is as important as the decision back in 1965 to stop parcelling out the Governor-General position to British aristocrats, after some 64 years of doubts that Australians could be trusted with the job.

Western Australia and most other states have had Australians as Governors since the late 1940s — although Victoria held out until 1974.

But Mr Beazley is the first declared republican in the post. And that is significant.

The appointment is a further, stark indication the country has moved away from favouring reliance on the British monarchy to send us part-time heads of state.

The notion that he will become “the Queen’s man” is unsustainable. The fact a republican can do the job — and even the AML says he will perform well — shows links to the British monarchy are unnecessary.

And the idea that Her Majesty has anything more than a marginal role in our democracy, and her Head of State role is anything beyond a vestigial creation of the 18th century European settlement here, is foolish.

The arrival in Queensland today of Prince Charles, our next head of state because of family connections, is a perfect opportunity to discuss the issue.

And to pose a question: If Australians could vote on a head of state, who would they go for? Charles or Kim?

To put it in simple terms: If an Australian and a Brit are competing head-to-head at the Commonwealth Games who will cheer for whom?

Mr Beazley has resigned from the advisory board of the Australian Republican Movement, another source of comfort for tittering monarchists.

“It’s the right choice,” said a spokesman for the AML.

But that was a choice made because of a change of job, not a change in principle.

He continues to support the job of head of state going to an Australian.

The heir to the throne has done nothing wrong by Australia and cannot be blamed for not being Australian.

But there is a further question the ARM would like him to answer.

“The Republic campaign has previously invited the Prince to use this visit to speak to Australians about why he believes he should be Australia’s head of state,” said ARM.

“While the Prince has replied through officials indicating he is not available, the invitation remains open.

“We believe Australians deserve to know why Prince Charles wants the job and what he wants to do with it.”