Australian Prime Minister John Howard recently had an "audience" -- as some Australian media described it -- with Queen Elizabeth II at the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting in Durban, South Africa. During the meeting, the prime minister of Australia personally informed the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that she will also -- following the country's Nov. 6 referendum -- remain the queen of Australia.

Australians went to the polls to vote "yes" or "no" to a proposal to replace the queen and her representative, the governor general, with a president nominated by the prime minister, seconded by the leader of the opposition and appointed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of members of the Federal Parliament. By a 55 percent to 45 percent majority, Australians voted "no" and opted -- for a variety of reasons or perhaps no reason at all -- for the current constitutional monarchy. After the referendum, Howard described the defeat of the republic as "comprehensive."

Yet his statement is only partially correct. Yes, the defeat of the referendum proposal was sweeping. Not only was it resoundingly defeated nationwide; it failed to be carried in any state of Australia. In that sense, it was "comprehensive." Nevertheless, even Howard is likely to admit that at least some if not a majority of those who voted "no" are not avowed or even nominal monarchists.