As long as I can recall, the argument has been made to ACM by concerned citizens that Australia should choose a sovereign different from The Queen who is The Queen of Australia a separate Crown from that of the United Kingdom. This would involve a royal prince or princess being invited to become King or Queen of Australia and also to replace the Governor-General.
This could involve a referendum. This would be a vote on a new dynasty; this would be different from states such as the United States and France which are sometimes referrd to as elective monarchies. In these a ruling president or elective monarch is chosen every few years.
It is argued that there would be advantages in Australia having a resident monarch. Some even think this is the only way to ensure our constitutional monarchy survives - I do not think this is so. The continuation of our Federal Commonwealth under the Crown, our crowned republic, is of course a matter for the Australian people - if and when they are asked in a referendum, as in 1999.
The debate then was on constitutional principles, as I expect it to be in any subsequent referendum. It was curious then that the republicans spent a vast amount of time telling ACM how to campaign. I expect we will take the same amount of notice of their advice in any future campaign - zero.
Presumably Canada, New Zealand and other Realms should also do this. The result would be fifteen new kings and queens.
There are precedents for this, mainly from or near the nineteenth century. On the whole they were very successful; most invited princes proved to be model constitutional monarchs.
In 1831 Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was offered the Belgian throne. In 1832 Otto of Wittelsbach, Prince of Bavaria, was offered the Greek throne. In 1862, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Austria was offered the Mexican throne, but more by the French than the Mexicans. He became the Emperor Maximilian, briefly. In 1866, Prince Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was offered the Rumanian throne, later becoming King Carol.
[ King Otto of Greece ]
In 1878, Alexander, Prince of Battenberg was offered the Bulgarian throne. In 1905, Danish Prince Carl was offered the Norwegian throne - a republic was rejected in a referendum after the personal union with Sweden came to an end.
Luxembourg is not an example of a country choosing its own monarch. The personal union with the Netherlands ended by operation of a version of the German Salic law against female succession in 1890 when a woman, Queen Wilhelmina, ascended the Netherlands throne. This was similar to Hanover in 1837, when Queen Victoria ascended the British throne, thus ending the personal union with the United Kingdom .
...Commonwealth Realms are different...
The Commonwealth Realms, inwhich there is a personal union of sixteen crowns, are different. They have had a very long and successful experience of the exercise of the role and function of the Crown through viceroys. Most have no republican movement worth mentioning, except Australia. Even there, the movement has been in serious decline, particularly since Malcolm Turnbull ended his very generous funding. According to Greg Barns, all of the other wealthy republican celebrities were parsimonious, and the movemnet was prinicpally subsidised by Mr. Turnbull.
In any event most Australian republican politicians have put off a referendum proposing some form of politicians’ republic to beyond the current reign. In other words, they are saying the issue is unlikely to come up while any of them are still in Parliament. Any of them.
The reason is they expect to be defeated in any referendum. Whether any would propose a separate monarchy is unknown, although it is said Malcolm Turnbull once supported this. Most Australian republicans will not even tell the people what sort of politicians' republic they are planning.
The development of separate Commonwealth Crowns –apart from pre-existing indigenous Crowns as in Tonga – does not seem to have been onsidered at the time the Realms were given self government. Although Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India, none of her children were ever made, say, Prince of Nova Scotia or Prince of Canada in preparation for the emergence of separate thrones.
..Crowned republic a natural form of government for Australia ....
Dr Harry Melkonian is an American constitutional lawyer and a senior lecturer at the United States Studies Centre in the University of Sydney. In “A novel solution to the republican debate” in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age 14 November, 2009, he argues that the way ahead for Australia is to elect our own monarch. It is clear that he realises that Australians are unlikely to turn their backs on our crowned republic.
“The debate about whether Australia should retain its British monarch or become a republic fails to consider,” he says “what may be the most acceptable arrangement for a majority of Australians - an Australian constitutional monarchy. Republicans rail against having a king or queen who hails from another land and monarchists fear the instability of a republic and the danger of an elected president undermining the Westminster system. Both sides raise valid concerns - concerns which could be resolved through a domestic monarch.”
“Monarchists maintain the current system provides stability and works well with the Westminster form of government. Their argument is meritorious. A constitutional monarch deprived by law of any real power does not threaten the ability of the prime minister to govern. A president, elected by the people, could claim a substantially greater franchise than a prime minister selected in secret party-room negotiations.”
“By the same token,” he writes, “republicans certainly have a legitimate concern that an independent country should not have any of its leaders reside in another country and be subject to the constitution of another country. Further, the British constitutional requirement that whoever is the king or queen of England (and Australia) must also be the head of the Church of England is about as un-Australian as anything imaginable.”
...why do complaining republican politicians never try to change the law?
There are three points to make. First, we are not subject to the UK Constitution. The law relating to the succession is an Australian law. And not one of the republican politicians who complain about its terms has ever tried to change it. This is because it suits them to complain. It has been left to the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to propose removing the old religious test and male primogeniture. This is to be discussed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Trinidad and Tobago this month.
...a republican confession...
Dr.Melkonian’s basic position seems to be that constitutional monarchy is the natural form of government for Australians. He is right.
This is consistent with the recent observation made to me by an elegant and prominent republican.
Let us call him Petronius.
” David, I know this will distress you," he said. " I am coming to the conclusion that Australia is essentially a monarchical country.”
"Waiter," I called. "The weeping vase...one tear for me, one tear for dear Petronius."
[ Nero, on learning Petronius has suicided on his orders:"The weeping vase,..... one tear for me , one tear for Petronius" Quo Vadis, 1951 ]
Remember the popular republican complaint, a Monarchy would cost the taxpayer too much money? Republicans give the impression, a president would be cheaper, certainly "more cost efficient".
Wait a minute, why not make a reality check?
The newly installed EU president, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, will start his new office on 1st January 2010. And he starts the job with a healthy budget. The Daily Telegraph has this to say about what the EU taxpayers have to shoulder:
"Herman Van Rompuy, the EU's new President, will be paid over £320,000 [$580,000] a year. The EU president will only pay a 24 per cent rate of tax and his personal annual travel budget will be £4 million [$7.22 million].
"He will have a staff of 60 people - a cabinet of 22, ten body guards and 28 support staff. His total office budget will be £22.3 million [$40.27 million].
[ Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton ]
...a presidential palace...
"A state of the art building is already under construction, at a cost to the taxpayer of £280 million [$505,6 million], to house the new president of Council."
"Named the Résidence Palace, after an existing Art Deco building, the new edifice has been designed to be the most impressive in Brussels and will be the venue for European Union summits after 2013. It has a floor space of 29,000 sq metres.
"The new figure is president of the European Council, the quarterly summits of heads of state and government that are the EU's highest political body.
"Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council becomes a fully fledged European institution rather than a political meeting, with origins in informal fireside chats between EU's founding six countries.
"The new President is charged with "driving forward" European Council decisions, which will in future be both politically and legally binding on all EU member states."
.....the EU shows how to appoint a mate as president....
Republicans must love the way the EU got its first president. 27 politicians sat together and agreed to appoint one man out of their midst to be the head boy. No parliament involved, no election, not even any kind of consultation with the peoples he is supposed to represent.
And to make things worse, the population of all but one of the 27 member states were not even asked if they wanted a president. Gosh, aren't republics so democratic?
Europe‘s politicians are deep in deal making concerning the appointment of the new European President*. As with so many things to do with the EU, it looks as though the choice could be determined in the traditional way - by the Paris–Berlin Axis.
According to London’s Daily Express the front runner is determined to replace Britain’s flag and national anthem with "European symbols.”
The British people of course are involved in the EU because of the deceit of their politicians who misrepresented its effect and cost, and failed to give them the vote they promised on the EU Constitution, renamed the Treaty of Lisbon.
[ The Paris- Berlin Axis decides ]
These plans about the presidency may however be thrown into disarray. The German ambassador to Brussels has caused a storm by telling a Belgian newspaper, De Morgen, that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel had thrown her support behind the Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald’s Paolo Totaro (“EU secret out as diplomat spills beans on top post” 20 November), the gaffe makes a mockery of the meticulous and secret negotiations conducted by the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.
“It sparked denials from the German Government, and The Times in London reported that a German diplomat had rung it to insist that Mr Bettzuege had been misquoted.Ms. Totaro says Mr Van Rompuy had become the favourite after it became clear more countries wanted to see the inaugural role be that of a low-key ''chairman'' rather than a high-profile leader such as the former British prime minister Tony Blair, who is being promoted by the British.
Despite Germany's attempt to not place its cards on the table, the clear hint that there has been a deal done with France on the presidency was strengthened when Dr Merkel confirmed Berlin and Paris would agree on their candidate: ''Germany and France will reach an agreement … and not oppose each other."
*[Since posting this, the EU has announced the appointment of Mr. Herman Van Rompuy.]
The Second Battle of El Alamein marked a major turning point in the Western Desert Campaign of the Second World War. The battle lasted from 23 October to 5 November 1942. The First Battle of El Alamein had stalled the Axis advance consisting of German and Italian troops under Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Thereafter, Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery took command of the British Eighth Army from General Claude Auchinleck in August 1942. The mainly Commonwealth Allied force came from the United Kingdom, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, the Free French and Greece.
[ General Montgomery at El Alamein ]
The Allied victory turned the tide in the North African Campaign. It ended Axis hopes of occupying Egypt, taking control of the Suez Canal, and gaining access to the Middle Eastern oil fields. Winston Churchill said: "This is not the end, this is not the beginning, nor is it even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." He also wrote "Before Alamein, we had no victory and after it we had no defeats".
In this video, HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York who saw active service in the Falklands War, presides at the 2009 remembrance ceremony and speaks of the sacrifice the troops made.
The Queen, Elizabeth II, presided (18/11) over the State Opening of the United Kingdom Parliament and delivered Her Government's mandate for its final months in office before the general election due next year.
The State Opening of Parliament is a ceremony loaded with historical ritual and symbolic significance for the governance of the United Kingdom. In one place are assembled the members of all three branches of government, of which the Sovereign is the nominal head in each case: The Queen-in-Parliament (Her Majesty, together with the House of Commons and the House of Lords), constitute the legislature; Her Majesty's Ministers (who are members of one or other House) constitute the executive government; Her Majesty's Judges are summoned to attend and represent the judiciary. Thus the State Opening demonstrates the governance of the United Kingdom but also the separation of powers
Similar ceremonies are held in other Commonwelath Realms. When The Queen is present, Her Majesty delivers the Speech from the Throne normally delivered by the Governor-General or Governor.
Writing in the well read column, "The Diary" in The Sydney Morning Herald (19/11) Sean Nicholls and Jessica Mahar report:
NSW REVIVES REPUBLIC
The question of whether Australia should become a republic is still being pushed by the NSW Labor Party. The central policy branch has organised a debate between the national convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, David Flint, and a constitutional law expert, Professor George Williams, to be held on Monday at Trades Hall in Sydney. ''NSW Labor is to be congratulated for allowing both sides to present their views and to defend their positions on this important issue,'' the ACM's website says.
I pointed out recently that once again it had been shown that the best countries in the world to live in were constitutional monarchies (or to use the synonym, crowned republics). A reader who thinks Australia becoming a politicians‘republic would be a good thing said this was a mere correlation. In other words there is absolutely no connection between the fact that a country is governed in a certain way and the result.
[ They worked for this too: Second World War scene in Britain]
He would say that wouldn’t he? So the way, say, Zimbabwe is governed has nothing to do with the quality of life there. In any event the evidence keeps flowing in.
Now we find that constitutional monarchies are fairer for women.
This comes from the World Economic Forum 2009 Annual Global Gender Gap Report. This is based on an index which assesses countries on how well they divide their resources and opportunities among their male and female populations. This is regardless of how wealthy they are. So a different result from the Human Development Index could be expected.
Constitutional monarchies make up less than 15% of countries on the index. But they make up 60% of the top ten and 50% of the top 20 countries. Doesn't that corroborate years of evidence presented here that they offer the best system of governance the world has ever seen?
And to borrow the style of the Australian Prime Minister Mr. Rudd, “I make no apology” for using the term “crowned republic”. It is sanctioned in our founding Charter. It is justified by the dictionary, philosophy, and usage. It is directed to the undecided the young those new to the country. It forces out those who hide their true preferences and their fundamental divisions behind the word “republic”.
Finally it annoys and is already seriously worrying those who want to make this country and New Zealand a politicians’ republic.
The Australian Labor Party Central Policy Branch has called a debate, “Towards a republic,” at 6.30 pm on Monday 23 November 2009 in the Trades Hall Auditorium, 377 Sussex Street Sydney.
NSW Labor is to be congratulated for allowing both sides to present their views and to defend their positions on this important issue.
The speakers will be Professor George Williams and Professor David Flint AM, described in the announcement of the debate as “two renowned defenders of either side of the debate, having been engaged in the discussion in this country for several years.”
“Be sure to attend what will be a great discussion on Australia becoming a Republic.”
Time: 6.30pm
Date: Monday, 23rd November, 2009
Location: Trades Hall Auditorium, 377 Sussex Street Sydney.
RSVP by: 22 November 2009
Please contact NSW Labor on 02 9207 2000 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
John Howard’s recent Neville Bonner Oration, “The Crowned Republic” was the subject of a comment by Greg Melleuish, Associate Professor of History at the University of Wollongong. This was published as “ Politics is not a dirty word” in The Australian on 17 November, 2009.
He says that politicians of all persuasions love to praise democracy and the great success of Australian democracy. “If there is a key to what democracy is really about then it is the belief that the ordinary people possess a great deal of common sense and that generally they get things right. Howard expressed this idea with regard to the 1999 republican referendum.”
.
[Plato The Academy]
Professor Melleuish points out there are other views of democracy. “One is that the people are really not too bright, that they are amenable to manipulation and therefore cannot be trusted to make good decisions. That is one republican interpretation of why that cause failed so badly in 1999.”
He says that is why one republican faction will not allow the people to choose the president. They think the people are too stupid to make a wise choice. This confirms that the republicans will never agree among themselves as to what sort of politicians’ republic they prefer.
John Howard rejects the view which emerged among some republicans in 1999 that the people were too stupid to accept the constitutional change proposed then. In the Neville Bonner Oration he said that the 1999 referendum represented the victory of the people and Australian democracy over the elites.
“Another view of democracy,” says Professor Melleuish “is that politicians, the people's representatives, engage in what is termed politics and cannot be trusted to make good decisions. In our public life praise of democracy is very often combined with a condemnation of politics as if it were possible to have one without the other. Of course democratically elected politicians engage in politics. The people who elect them are never of one mind; politics is about negotiating between conflicting interests.”
The denigration of politics, and its association with our leaders and elected representatives, he says, has some dire consequences for our democracy.
“For one thing it maps out a path that Plato would have liked democracy to move in ancient Athens. Plato hated the idea that ordinary people might have the capacity to run their own affairs. He much preferred a system in which individuals who had been educated for their role, the so-called guardians, ran society in what they believed to be the best interests of everyone.”
Because ACM argued in 1999 against a politicians’ republic, as we do today, some republicans say we do not trust politicians.
Rather our position is that we see the constitutional system as providing checks and balances against the political institutions, and that central to these is the Australian Crown which provides leadership beyond politics. in other words, politicans have an important role to play in our system.
We object to this role being vastly extended by the removal of the Crown.
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the landslide defeat of the republican referendum, Sky TV convened a major debate between the proponents of republican change and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. This was broadcast across the nation on 6 November.
Tony Abbott, ACM’s first executive secretary and now a prominent parliamentarian joined the current ACM national executive director, Thomas Flynn against Greens leader Senator Bob Brown and chaiman of the republican movement, Major-General Keating.
During the debate, Thomas Flynn replied forcefully to the constant republican complaint that they were, if not cheated, hard done by in 1999. The model which was put then was the one which had the overwhelming support of the republican delegates at the 1998 Constitutional Convention. It was the one chosen by the republican movement.
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the landslide defeat of the republican referendum, Sky TV convened a major debate between the proponents of republican change and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. This was broadcast across the nation on 6 November.
Tony Abbott, ACM’s first executive secretary and now a prominent parliamentarian joined the current ACM national executive director, Thomas Flynn against Greens leader Senator Bob Brown and chaiman of the republican movement, Major-General Keating. This is the second part of an important debate.
