Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #1 

Queen's visit leaves Australian republic a distant dream

Britain's Queen Elizabeth receives flowers from schoolchildren waving Australian flags in Sydney in this March 13, 2006 file photo.REUTERS/Stringer/Files
Britain's Queen Elizabeth receives flowers from schoolchildren waving Australian flags in Sydney in this March 13, 2006 file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Stringer/Files

SYDNEY | Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:56am EDT
 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - When Britain's Queen Elizabeth arrives in Australia next week, protocol says she should be addressed as Queen of Australia -- something that will grate with republicans who want to sever ties with Britain and appoint an Australian president.

 

The royal tour, possibly the queen's last to Australia given her 85 years and the long distance from Buckingham Palace, will reignite debate on whether the nation should become a republic.

 

Australia is a constitutional monarchy, with the British monarch its head of state who acts in predominately a ceremonial manner but has the power to approve the abolition of parliament, which happened in 1975 toppling the then government.

 

But republicans concede any debate will be short lived and their dream of an Australian republic and president will remain just that -- for many years to come.

 

Time, politics and apathy have all conspired against Australia's republicans. And republicans know there is no appetite to put the issue back on the national agenda.

 

An opinion poll this week revealed support for the monarchy had risen to 55 percent of the population, while support for a republic was at its lowest level in 23 years at 34 percent.

 

"Politicians on both sides say they believe in a republic but none of them is confident of its electoral appeal to bring it forward," said Mike Keating, chairman of the Australian Republic Movement.

 

"It makes me feel personally, and the republican movement generally, a bit despondent about the state of Australian politics."

 

In contrast, Australia's monarchists, who defeated a national vote to become a republic in 1999, are giddy with excitement about Queen Elizabeth's 16th "Down Under" royal tour.

 

"The magic of monarchy still has a place and we saw that at the royal wedding and we will see it during the royal visit. There is great affection for the queen," said Professor David Flint, head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM).

 

After their 1999 defeat, republicans thought they were given a second chance when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007, promising another plebiscite on a republic.

 

But Rudd was toppled in a 2010 party room coup by current Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and although a republican, she heads a minority government struggling to survive and has no desire to raise the divisive republican issue.

 

Gillard, like many republicans, now says Australia will not become a republic until Queen Elizabeth dies, such is the affection for the queen in Australia.

 

Keating says "it's essentially just putting the issue off," while monarchists say no future government would dare raise the issue in the wake of a royal funeral or coronation.

 

"It is completely off the public agenda," said Flint. "The republican politicians say they want a plebiscite. They won't get it."

 

If opinion polls are correct, then Gillard will be ousted at the next election in 2013 in favor of conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, a staunch monarchist. If that is the case, the earliest republicans can expect another vote would be after the 2016 election, and only if a republican is prime minister.

 

REPUBLICANS-IN-WAITING?

Australians have fought alongside Britain in every major war, but there has always been an anti-British streak running through the country.

Gold miners staged the failed Eureka stockade rebellion against British taxation in 1854. During a royal visit in 1868, Queen Victoria's son, Prince Alfred, was shot in an assassination attempt as he picnicked on Bondi Beach.

Twenty years ago, a small band of Australians met in Sydney to form the Australian Republican Movement. On a wet and miserable night in Sydney in July, many of the same people held a 20th anniversary dinner.

It was a "sodden night when only fools and fanatics would venture out, 150 rusted-on believers in an Australian republic gathered for an evening of warm reminiscence," founding member Mark Day wrote of the event.

"But the warmth could not hide the bleak reality. We held a party, few came and fewer noticed," said Day.

Day recalled the black humor talk of treason and sedition when the movement was formed, the optimism in the 1990s that a republic would be formed, and how the nation's "heart was broken" when the republic vote was lost.

"Twenty years on from the original push and a dozen on from the referendum, when will the time be right to have another go? Certainly not now. There is a toxic mood in public affairs at present," said Day.

"The Gillard government has its back to the wall and it appears the voters have stopped listening."

 

AUSTRALIA'S ROYAL LOVE AFFAIR

During Queen Elizabeth's 1963 Australian royal tour, then Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies said: "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die."

 

For most, Queen Elizabeth is the only monarch they have known and the emotional connection resonates with many, especially older, Australians.

 

Monarchist Jai Martinkovits, 24, says many young Australians also have a soft spot for the queen, just like they would their grandmother, and now a growing affinity with the young royals, like Prince William, Kate and Harry.

 

"The young royals are huge in raising awareness about what this institution is and why it is relevant. I think with that will flow further support for the monarchy," he said.

 

Martinkovits is the youngest executive director of the ACM and reflects a push to attract young Australians to the cause. ACM's Facebook has 22,000 fans and its website 12 million hits.

 

But it is apathy toward politics amongst young Australians that is the main reason they do not support a republic, said Martinkovits, who admits he became involved by accident when he dated the ACM secretary.

 

"If we look at the polls, there are two categories of people who have very, very little support for a republic. The elderly are passionate monarchists and young people are apathetic and generally conservative to change," he said.

 

Flint said support for the monarchy was support for Australia's stable political system and not directly driven by a desire to have a queen or king as head of state.

"I think there is strong support for the existing system which incorporates the crown," he said. "They don't completely understand the precise role of the crown, but they have a sense that this is something that is not political and understand that you need checks and balances on power."

 

Australia is a nation of immigrants with one in four people born overseas and Flint believes many migrant Australians oppose a republic because of past experiences in countries where presidential power was abused.

 

The zenith of the republic debate in the 1990s was wrapped around the issue of national identity as it coincided with a time of reflection as Australia neared the 2000 Sydney Olympics and its centenary as a nation in 2001.

 

The past decade has seen the national focus shift to more pragmatic issues, bracketed by global economic woes.

 

Some republicans hope that from 2014, Australians will enter another period of self-examination and rekindle the republican dream. The ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) centenaries starting in 2014 will mark Australia's greatest military battles, especially the defeat under British command at Gallipoli during World War One.

 

"In the years ahead we will surely reflect on the critical elements that contributed to the Australian psyche," said Day. "Republicanism and the ANZAC image -- laconic self-reliance and insolence toward the British generals -- are easy bedfellows."

 

(Reporting by Michael Perry; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #2 
Yay, support for the Australian monarchy is at a supermajority and support for a republic is at its lowest since 1988! Huzzah!
__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
NewElizabethan

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #3 

Some well known Australians affirm their monarchism at Palace reception... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8825847/Elle-Macpherson-and-Hugh-Jackman-attend-Buckingham-Palace-reception.html


__________________
Lord Admiral Nelson - "you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king"
Tolgron

Registered:
Posts: 195
Reply with quote  #4 
Once again, I'm annoyed by the Australian head of state being referred to as a British Queen. Yes, she does happen to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but whenever HM is placed within an Australian context, she is always, first and foremost, the Australian Queen of Australia. Just as she'd be Canadian first and foremost in Canadian affairs, a New Zealander in New Zealander affairs and so on.

This is important because so long as the Australian media keeps trying to make her look like a British monarch rather than an Australian one, it presents a very unattractive (and very untrue) colonial image. Britain has no political ties with Australia anymore and pretty much hasn't for nearly a century, and as far as we're concerned Australia is its own country with its own monarch. We just happen to be in the happy circumstance of having to share her.
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolgron
Once again, I'm annoyed by the Australian head of state being referred to as a British Queen. Yes, she does happen to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but whenever HM is placed within an Australian context, she is always, first and foremost, the Australian Queen of Australia. Just as she'd be Canadian first and foremost in Canadian affairs, a New Zealander in New Zealander affairs and so on.

This is important because so long as the Australian media keeps trying to make her look like a British monarch rather than an Australian one, it presents a very unattractive (and very untrue) colonial image. Britain has no political ties with Australia anymore and pretty much hasn't for nearly a century, and as far as we're concerned Australia is its own country with its own monarch. We just happen to be in the happy circumstance of having to share her.

Reuters isn't actually Australian media, though. I think they're a wire service.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolgron
Once again, I'm annoyed by the Australian head of state being referred to as a British Queen. Yes, she does happen to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but whenever HM is placed within an Australian context, she is always, first and foremost, the Australian Queen of Australia. Just as she'd be Canadian first and foremost in Canadian affairs, a New Zealander in New Zealander affairs and so on.

This is important because so long as the Australian media keeps trying to make her look like a British monarch rather than an Australian one, it presents a very unattractive (and very untrue) colonial image. Britain has no political ties with Australia anymore and pretty much hasn't for nearly a century, and as far as we're concerned Australia is its own country with its own monarch. We just happen to be in the happy circumstance of having to share her.

Reuters isn't actually Australian media, though. I think they're a wire service.


Reuters is a global news agency headquartered in London, owned by Thomson Reuters.

Until 2008 the Reuters news agency formed part of an independent company, Reuters Group plc, which was also a provider of financial market data. Since the merger between Reuters Group and The Thomson Corporation the Reuters news agency has been a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, forming part of its Markets Division.  It has been accused of past bias against Israel, but for the most part is a respected news agency.  It's coverage of British/Canadian/Australian/Jamaican etc royals has been mostly positive.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,580
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolgron
Once again, I'm annoyed by the Australian head of state being referred to as a British Queen. Yes, she does happen to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but whenever HM is placed within an Australian context, she is always, first and foremost, the Australian Queen of Australia. Just as she'd be Canadian first and foremost in Canadian affairs, a New Zealander in New Zealander affairs and so on.

This is important because so long as the Australian media keeps trying to make her look like a British monarch rather than an Australian one, it presents a very unattractive (and very untrue) colonial image. Britain has no political ties with Australia anymore and pretty much hasn't for nearly a century, and as far as we're concerned Australia is its own country with its own monarch. We just happen to be in the happy circumstance of having to share her.


It's the creeping republicanism of the MSM. We have the same problem in Canada. Whenever a member of the Royal Family is mentioned, they almost always refer to him/her as 'Xth in line to the British Throne'! I don't know how many comments, letters, etc. I've written fighting that!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
NeasOlc

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #8 
Distant dream? More like distant nightmare.
Tolgron

Registered:
Posts: 195
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist

Reuters isn't actually Australian media, though. I think they're a wire service.


Aaaaaah, fair enough. I hope my point still stands though: Australian context equals Australian monarch.

I apologise for the outburst; as I said, it rather annoys me when situations like that occur.
Sujit

Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolgron
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist

Reuters isn't actually Australian media, though. I think they're a wire service.


Aaaaaah, fair enough. I hope my point still stands though: Australian context equals Australian monarch.

I apologise for the outburst; as I said, it rather annoys me when situations like that occur.


Well let me say that I completely support you on this matter.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #11 
People will no doubt grit their teeth at the way this article starts, as I did, but after that it's a very pleasing report from the Queen of (article author please note the next word) Australia's tour.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #12 
I honestly cannot see a republic happening in my lifetime if ever. Simply because Australians like most of the Commonwealth are constitutionally conservative- when push comes to shove we are loathe to change, if not then too apathetic to consider it. Tony Abbott is a committed monarchist but his own party is by no means united on it, though if republicanism is becoming more and more of a fringe option with the public it would limit their effectiveness.

There are minor parties to the right of the Liberal-National coalition with upper house seats. These include:
- Family First, essentially the political wing of Assemblies of God.
- Christian Democratic Party (CDP), an evangelical party which is the personal vehicle of Fred Nile.
- Democratic Labor Party (DLP), successor to the party of the same name which was a right-wing and mainly Catholic split from the ALP in 1955. The original DLP was staunchly conservative and anti-Communist, which helped keep the Liberals in power until 1972 during the height of Vietnam and the 60s upheavals. They lost their relevance and support during the 70s and officially dissolved in 1978. The branch in its stronghold of Victoria refused to accept this, so they simply refounded the party which returned to the Federal Senate in 2010. The party has a strongly social conservative platform and is opposed to neoliberalism.
- Australia Party, founded by longtime independent (former National Party) MP Bob Katter. He appears to be more of a "rural populist", but the basic social conservative/anti-neoliberal agenda isn't different from the DLP.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.