After his recent coronation, King Charles III is now fairly securely ensconced on the British throne, sitting on a level of public support for the monarchy that fluctuates around the 60% mark.

But the king’s tenure is less secure in the 14 Commonwealth territories where he still reigns. Six of them — including the two biggest, Canada and Australia — would ditch Charles as their symbolic head of state if given the chance, according to a recent poll.

In a 1999 referendum, Australians voted to retain Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in the largely ceremonial role. Now, however, enthusiasm for the monarchy there certainly does appear to be waning for both political and economic reasons.

“The idea of inheriting the position of Australia’s head of state is really out of step with Australian values,” said Sandy Biar, CEO of the Australian Republic Movement. “We have a head of state who lives on the other side of the world, who isn’t chosen by us and who’s in that position by birth rather than merit. We deserve better than that.”

Politics and national pride are the main factors in the growing disaffection with the monarchy, but money is also playing a part. According to Biar, many Australians now believe that it is not in their economic interest to have a head of state who is not Australian. 

“When they’re out there, in trade delegations, meeting people from other countries around the world, you’d expect them to be standing up for Australia’s interests. But instead our head of state is out there advocating for one other country in particular that is sometimes in competition with us,” Biar said, referring to the United Kingdom.  

In Canada, Tom Freda of Citizens for a Canadian Republic feels the same about having a Brit at the pinnacle of his country’s political system, albeit as a figurehead with no significant political power.

“On what planet does sharing a head of state with another independent country make sense?” he said. “It just doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense at all.”

For Freda, ending the monarchy in Canada is primarily about removing a humiliating relic of colonialism.

“What more paramount example of our colonial past is there than having a British monarch as head of state? It’s a huge symbol of empire and colonialism at the top of our parliamentary system,” he said. “In every other way we’re an independent country, but not in this. We should have the ability to choose our own head of state.”

While this is overwhelmingly a political and constitutional issue, Freda argues that the monarchy also imposes extra financial costs on Canada. 

“When Charles visits us, it costs around $25,000 an hour just to cover the security,” he said. “When the queen visited, her most expensive visit was $1 million per day for a 10- or 11-day visit. That’s an exorbitant amount of money.

“I do suspect that with a home-grown head of state, we’ll have fewer and shorter royal visits, and so it will be cheaper. It will definitely be cheaper,” he added.

The monarchy costs Canada the equivalent of around U.S. $43 million a year, according to a report by the Monarchist League of Canada. The pro-monarchy group describes that as a “value proposition” that amounts to only C$1.55 per Canadian — less than the price of a cup of coffee.

But that’s still too much for Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He says government spending on the monarch’s local representative, the governor general, is excessive and needs to be reined in — especially at a time when, in his words, “so many Canadians are worried about whether they can afford gasoline or are worried about losing their homes as mortgage payments go up.”

Terrazzano was particularly angered by a trip to the Middle East by the governor general and her 29-person entourage. He said it cost $60,000 USD just for in-flight catering.

“They were enjoying beef Wellington with ragout. They had stuffed pork tenderloin. Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve done quite a bit of flying, and when I’m on Air Canada or WestJet, I can’t even get beef Wellington-flavored chips, let alone beef Wellington with ragout,” he fumed.  

No one at the governor general’s office in Ottawa was available for comment, and the Monarchist League of Canada did not respond to a request for an interview.

But the chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, Eric Abetz, vigorously defended the institution.

“Our constitutional monarchy provides an independent sovereign to our nation. It provides a nonpartisan, unifying head of state. It provides stability and a sense of continuity. And, I think, a constitutional monarch is a lot cheaper to maintain than a president,” Abetz said, referring to a position that doesn’t exist in Australia, where primary political power is held by the prime minister.

“A president of Australia would have all the same trappings as a monarch, if not more. And then you’d have the cost of electing them every three or four years,” he added. “The constitutional monarchy has served us very well over many years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”