In a few months, Australia's King Charles III will be officially crowned in London.
There's a fair chance that might kick off another chapter in the debate about whether or not Australia should get rid of the monarchy.
We spoke to two experts about what the alternatives to the King might be, and when, or if, that might change.
Hang on, King Charles is Australia's king?
Yes. King Charles is the King of Australia.
"I think that that isn't well understood," said Cindy McCreery, a senior lecturer of history at the University of Sydney.
"The fact is that the British monarch is separately, individually monarch of the remaining Commonwealth Realms.
"So when King Charles goes to Canada, he is King of Canada, when he goes to Australia, he's King of Australia, and that those are actually separate relationships."
Besides the United Kingdom, King Charles is also the monarch of countries including The Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Belize, The Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
"It's not that we're all in one combined kind of kingdom, I think a lot of people don't quite understand he's got this separate kind of constitutional relationship with Australia," Dr McCreery said.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy with King Charles, represented by the Governor-General, as our official head of state.
What's the alternative to King Charles?
In Australia the most likely option is a republic. Which, put very simply, would mean getting rid of the monarchy.
And if the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) gets its way, the country would get its first Australian head of state.
It's something that Australians have been talking about for decades since independence from Britain.
To give you an idea, here's what former prime minister Bob Hawke told the ABC's Four Corners program in 1983:
"I don't think we'll be talking about Kings of Australia for evermore," Mr Hawke said.
Then he gave a clue about to why becoming a republic wasn't his priority at the time, almost 40 years ago.
"I believe we'd be better off as a republic, but I don't think it's a matter of great importance," he said.
"If we became a republic tomorrow it wouldn't improve (the living conditions of Australians) one iota. But I think in terms of being our own country, that the time will come when Australians prefer to be a republic."
Has Australia voted over whether to become a republic before?
Yes. Before we get into that, becoming a republic would mean changing Australia's constitution.
The only way to do that is to hold a referendum.
Any changes to the constitution requires a majority of Australians voters to vote in favour of a change, as well as a majority of states.
It's a pretty high bar to cross. Of the 44 referendums held in Australia, only eight have successfully passed.
In 1999 Australian held a referendum on becoming a republic, which failed.
About 54 per cent of people voted against it, while about 45 per cent of people voted for it (about 95 per cent of eligible voters took part).
One of the issues in the vote involved the type of republic it would create.
Rather than having a president being directly elected by the public, the model put to Australians outlined a president that would be appointed by politicians. Here it is in full:
To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Polls suggested a majority of Australians supported a republic in 1999, but some argue the type of republic framed in the question influenced the vote.
The 1999 referendum also means Australians under 40 haven't had a say on the question.
How do Australians feel about a republic now?
Recent polls show support isn't overwhelming for either side.
A Guardian Essential poll, conducted shortly after the Queen's death, showed 43 per cent support for Australia becoming a republic.
Another poll conducted by Resolve showed 46 per cent support for the change.
A Roy Morgan Research SMS poll found 60 per cent of respondents favoured Australia remaining a monarchy, while 40 per cent supported a move to a republic with an elected president.
In May, the ABC's Vote Compass data suggested a slim majority of Australians were not supportive of Prince Charles becoming King.
About 43 per cent of people said they wanted to cut ties with the monarchy, which was an increase compared with the 2019 survey.
According to the Vote Compass data, about a quarter of Australians said they were "neutral" on the topic.
Is the government taking steps towards a republic?
It looks like they are. This is where things might get a little awkward for royal lovers.
The country now has an assistant minister for the Republic of Australia.
The position was created after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came to power earlier this year and the role is currently held by Matt Thistlewaite.
To give you an idea where he might stand on the issue, prior to the Queen's death, Mr Thistlewaite said it seemed silly that Australian politicians pledge to serve an overseas monarch.
"Ironically, under section 44 of the constitution, you cannot run for parliament if you hold allegiance to another country, yet the first thing we do in parliament is promise to serve a foreign monarch," he told Nine Newspapers earlier this year.
"It's archaic and ridiculous. It does not represent the Australia we live in and it's further evidence of why we need to begin discussing becoming a republic with our own head of state. We are no longer British."
Does this all mean Australians will vote to become a republic soon?
No. Not for current term of government.
Right now, the government's top priority is constitutional recognition of First Nations people by enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
"I made it clear before the last election what our intention was during this term, and that is the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our constitution," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in September.
"I said at the time I couldn't envisage a circumstance where we changed our head of state to an Australian head of state but still didn't recognise First Nations people in our constitution — so that's our priority this term."
That means a vote for a republic won't happen until after the 2025 election at least. And even that depends on the politics of the government that wins power.
Emeritus Professor John Warhurst, from the Australian National University's School of Politics and International Relations, said the vote for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament could help the republican cause.
"The Voice to Parliament, in a way, will help the republican movement," said Professor Warhurst, who's also a former chair of the Australian Republican Movement.
"Given the gestation period for the Voice has been so long, it would be at the very earliest 2027 for a republican referendum.
"It probably depends on bipartisan support, but it probably depends on Labor winning the next election.
"(Matt) Thistlewaite sees them as moving towards a more mature, modern Australia.
"There's certainly a positive not only because, hopefully, it would be a successful referendum, but it can be seen as a parallel development and that will be very much part of the republican campaign."
Will the death of Queen Elizabeth II have an impact?
The Queen's death was a big moment for Australians, Dr McCreery said. She reigned for more than 70 years.
"I think psychologically, the passing of Queen Elizabeth II is absolutely a moment for people in Australia, and around the world, to reflect on her reign, but also to think about the future," Dr McCreery said.
"So I think it is, in many ways, an opportune time for people in Australia to think about our constitutional arrangement.
"I think that's why we see an uptick in discussions about becoming a republic."
However, Dr McCreery said it's still too early to say how much of an impact her death has on the future of the monarchy in Australia, or push for a republic.
"Among some republicans, now the Queen has passed on, they might think 'we've been respectful of her and now we can go for broke'," she said.
"On the other hand, I think there is also a great deal of empathy for Charles, he's obviously a son grieving for his mother. So I think it's, it may still be a little premature."
Meanwhile, Professor Warhurst saw the changing of monarchs as an opportunity for republicans.
"I suppose there's a sense of 'well, let's give the guy a go', approach for people who might follow these things closely, but generally the switch is good for the republic and bad for the monarchy in Australia," he said.
"Charles doesn't have the depth of support in the community that Queen Elizabeth II did, there's no doubt about that. The polls have always shown that.
"I think the fact that the Queen has been replaced by a King may even be a slight factor. There was a lot of affection for the Queen as female leader."
What about other Commonwealth Nations?
When it comes to being a constitutional monarchy, Australia is in the minority of Commonwealth Nations.
Basically, the Commonwealth is a collection of 56 countries which are mostly made up of territories within the British Empire.
Of that number, 36 have broken away from the monarchy to become republics. Five others have their own monarchies.
It's part of a trend beginning with India in the wake of World War II.
"So there's definitely a trend. If you look at the makeup of the Commonwealth now, the vast majority of nations are republics," Dr McCreery said.
"There's a long tradition, starting with India, of formerly Commonwealth realms becoming republics.
"And India was the kind of test case to being allowed to stay in the Commonwealth."
She said several countries, especially in the Caribbean, have signalled that they plan to become republic and remain in the Commonwealth.
Barbados became the world's newest republic when it removed Queen Elizabeth as head of state last year.
The Queen was replaced by Governor-General Sandra Mason, who then became the president of Barbados.
So, if Australia had a president, would it be like the United States?
No necessarily. It's not likely Australians wouldn't be voting for their answer to Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Any new head of state would not set government policy or pass laws. In theory, the role would be mostly ceremonial.
It looks like the Australian Republic Movement would push to establish a more ceremonial figure, like Sandra Mason in Barbados.
Every country is different, but other examples of largely ceremonial presidents include India's President Droupadi Murmu, or Ireland's President Michael Higgins.
Whereas presidents in countries with political systems like the United States and France have more executive power.
Would an elected president be able to grab more power once in office?
There's a big debate about how an Australian president would be elected.
The model rejected by voters in 1999 would have meant the head of state would be appointed by a majority of federal politicians.
That meant Australians would not have been able to directly elect a president.
The Australian Republican Movement's preferred model appears to strike a balance between the two options. It would see Australians vote for candidates who are selected by state, territory and federal politicians.
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating said he disagrees with this model, explaining that he felt the direct election of a president could leave Australia with a "US-style" leader.
Another former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said a direct vote could result in a president becoming a rival prime minister.
Dr McCreery said working out what a republic could look like is difficult.
"There's the complicated issue of what kind of republic do we want to be? How are we going to choose our head of state?" she says.
"I'm not 100 per cent certain the model the ARM have settled on is one that Australians will agree with.
"But I think we need to wait until the Voice to Parliament is resolved before we get on to really openly discussing becoming a republic."
Professor Warhurst said there will always be a range of opinions.
"There's always such a range of opinion, you're getting everything from 'we don't need a head of state' to 'we need a more powerful head of state'," Professor Warhurst said.
He said he felt that Australians are not interested in dramatic change.
"I think what will go over with the Australian people is steady as she goes in terms as the position of the head of state in the political system," he said.
"We (Republicans) want a Westminster system led by the prime minister with the head of state acting like the Governor-General as a symbolic leader above politics to some extent, but neither stronger or weaker than we're used to.
"The big difference is it will be a republican and a Australian head, rather than an overseas monarch."
