Will republicans refuse an Order of Australia because of its royal connection?

Martin Flanagan, Sports Writer for The Age, did not like Tony Abbott's enabling the creation of new Knights (AK) and Dames (AD) to the statutes of the Order of Australia. In a comment published today he calls it "a vain and empty honours system from another time and place".

But what's all the fuss about something that is so vain and empty? Why does Mr Flanagan get so upset about something he cares so little? "Respect does not come with titles – respect is earned", he writes. Right, but wasn't the Order of Australia created to show respect for achievements? Isn't the Order of Australia there to give credit to those who earn it?

If Mr Flanagan could answer 'yes' to these questions, what could be wrong in allowing men and women to add three or four letters in front of their first name as a "special recognition ... to Australians of 'extraordinary and pre-eminent achievement and merit' in their service to Australia or to humanity at large" (Tony Abbott)?

It seems that Mr Flanagan and his fellow republicans are less intent to withhold honours from recipients, but they object any honours that are obviously connected with the crown. They certainly dislike the first sentence of Tony Abbott's announcement: "Her Majesty the Queen has amended the Letters Patent constituting the Order of Australia". They should refuse any medal of the Order of Australia since the Australian system of honours and awards was established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and The Queen is the Sovereign Head of the Order of Australia.

Isn't it time that all these Irish who loath the Australian Monarchy finally wake up to reality?

The British Monarchy has spoken in Irish