Counterpunch: Wills’ visit was a stunt and a farce

Crafty Cockney says:

05:11am | 27/01/10

Cor blimey, Alan offers us a very accurate portrayal of Britain circa 1910. Britain circa 2010? Not so much.

It’s just plain daft to link the Royal Family to life opportunities. Sweden, monarchy and all, is a much more equal society than the US. So too are the fellow monarchies of the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and, yes, even the UK. In fact, the UK and Australia have pretty much identical GINI coefficients - and both are “fairer” than the US.

There are lots of good arguments for a republic but this ain’t one of ‘em.

Paul says:

07:01am | 27/01/10

He got less coverage and public response than other trashy celebrities like Britney Spears. If royalty is going to be like one big long reality TV show, with its stars desperate for attention, fine. Just don’t let them be our head of state.

iansand says:

07:20am | 27/01/10

When are the sex tapes coming out?

Liz says:

07:39am | 27/01/10

Yes a bid for publicity and a toe in the water,despite the press it was underwhelming.We don’t need a monarchy,they symbolise the colonisation that took place all over the world on their behalf.Australia was a dumping ground for the starving who’s poverty caused them to steal and get caught.
In SA it was a bid for new land to populate,stolen from the indigenous people without remorse or payment or permission and an escape from shocking conditions in Britain.

Adam Dennis says:

07:42am | 27/01/10

Dammit, The Punch, why do you reprint Alan Howe’s ignorant and inflammatory Herald Sun articles? He has nothing constructive to contribute to republicanism or monarchism. He’s not part of the debate, just a loud and offensive noise on the sidelines. If you’re short on Punch content, publish less pieces rather than inserting this drivel. I know it must drive monarchists nuts, and as a republican it makes me angry to see someone with the title “executive editor” writing grubby little pieces that focus on the royal family. The republican question is about whether Australia should have a ruling monarchy in the 21st century and beyond, not about the semantic intent of a single sentence on the palace’s website.

jamie says:

08:44am | 27/01/10

What’s the matter Alan? Running scared that such an insignificant little prince could ruin your grandiose dreams of being one of the architects for a republic in your lifetime?

Yes, there are many good reasons for having a republic, just as there are many good reasons for remaining a monarchy. Sadly you fail to address any of the issues and continue on an uniformed rant devoid of fact bit long on rhetoric and emotion.

And just aside from all of this, it would appear that most Australians are still quite happy with the monarchy, no matter how much elitists like youself continually push your anti monarchy barrow. Go and have a cry to your chardy sipping, leather elbow patched mates, they’ll all sit around and be outraged and denounce the Australian population as uneducated swill will no right to be part of this discussion.

Don’t get me wrong, a republic will happen, possibily in my lifetime, but not in yours.

AdamC says:

09:24am | 27/01/10

Yes, D’oh, he did. And the piece was so inflammatory and ridiculous, I thought it must be a joke.

And, while I admire Alan’s patriotism, I can’t see why the Windsors would like Australia more than, say, Canada or NZ. (I guess citing Belize sounds better for the republicans, though.)

Jane says:

10:05am | 27/01/10

Bit of a moot point right now Al, considering that the country isn’t heading to the polls to vote on a Republic, but dont’t let that stop you from the mud slinging!

Having lived in the UK for 8 years your observations are flat out WRONG. Agree with D’oh…...EPIC FAIL!!

hughie says:

10:15am | 27/01/10

William might have got less coverage than Britney Spears, but I doubt any old hack in a Comcar turning up to a centre in Redfern would have attracted 2000 people.

It’s fascinating reading you guys rant and wail about the supposed evils of the monarchy, and this guy in particular.  It’s like for you there’s no turning back - republic or bust.  Relax!

Sherlock says:

10:25am | 27/01/10

I find the debate on Australia becoming a republic one big yawn. However I think it’s fair enough to put it to a vote every ten years so let’s go again.

However the republic lobby will need to put up something a lot better than what they have so far before they get their way. The current system works well and change for change sake isn’t a good enough argument.

Martin G says:

10:52am | 27/01/10

I’m still waiting your alternative proposal, Mr Howe. Instead you give us rubbish about how uncontrolled multiculturalism and immigration (what that has to do with a republic I’m not sure) makes us better than everyone else, which is clearly not the case.

KRUDD and Barack Obama are shining examples of what not to be, instead of idols. All talk and no action, what a great way to lead the world forward!

We’ll just file this one away to gather dust and cobwebs next to your ad hominem, factless rant from last week. If you are the best the republican movement can come up with, bring on King William.

Daniel says:

12:57pm | 27/01/10

The whole thing with him riding about on boats in the Harbour was a massive sensationalist joke.

formersnag says:

01:27pm | 27/01/10

Monarchy rules OK.

Rhys says:

01:43pm | 27/01/10

“but in Australia and other countries like, say, the United States it is still possible to rise form the bottom to the top”

This is less true now than ever before, I don’t have the stats handy but there is very little actual mobility between classes in the US. Wealth and opportunity are very much inherited and passed down through families.

Ben Gray says:

03:59pm | 27/01/10

I think Australia would have become a republic years ago, if only the cause wasn’t represented by Republicans.
You ask someone, anyone: Republic or monarchy? Simple question, simple answer, most will say Republic.
That is of course unless you’re unfortunate enough to come up against someone who hates the monarchy, then they’ll launch into a spiel (speil? I forget) about the evils of John Howard, Princess Di, QE2 and probably Princess Marie of Denmark for good measure.
Here’s the rub: Most people, despite wanting a Republic, are not openly hostile (or have any hostility at all) to the monarchy.
Just because we want an Aussie head of state, it doesn’t mean that we hate or even care about the royals.
As soon as Republicans realise that, they’ll do much better.

SLF says:

05:54pm | 27/01/10

I completely agree with the sentiment expressed in this article. It is totally impossible for people from the lower classes to rise to the top in the UK, there is always someone from the upper classes in the way of them stamping them down.

Just ask Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Joe Lewis or Phillip Green, all top 20 richest Britains and only there because of the silver spoons in their mouths….Oh hang on, thats complete crap isnt it they are all as common as muck.

Maybe the author has some chip on his shoulder about where he comes from and his background. Have some of those new whinging pom eggs with your chips Alan. Whats the real hatred of the Royals for? There must be some kind of deep seated trauma associated with such feeling for an institution….

Robbie says:

08:49pm | 27/01/10

Alan,fate and nothing else offered the Royals their ‘‘inherited opportunity and wealth’‘.They didn’t ask for it.Like it or not they give many people some pleasure with their visits and some people like you and Liz a fair amount of grief.Now let’s talk welfare where some families not so royal pass down their ‘‘inherited opportunity and wealth’’ by way of commission housing and such.They also don’t ask for it ,they demand it! Giving only themselves some pleasure.Alan, when the Republic of Australia is inevitibly born you’ll have your wish and be rid of a ‘‘foreign Head of State’‘.Alas,Alan I along with with many others in the work force will be supporting generations of lazy moronic parasites for many years to come.So do us all a favour and sail off into the sunset with Lizzy and live hatefully ever after.

loz says:

10:15pm | 27/01/10

If anyone was going to pull a stunt it would have to be the The Australian Republican Movement. With the threats of a large republican protest at his engagements that failed to materialise. The group also last week called on the Prince to confirm he had no objection to the country becoming a republic when he gave a speech the people to mark Australia Day in Melbourne. That should send shutters down one’s spine, to what the deception behind the republic mask is all about.

Christopher of Melbourne says:

01:12am | 28/01/10

Well said, Alan.These free-loaders should have been given the boot years ago. I can’t believe there are so many monarchists and so-called republicans too indolent to demand this family vacate the scene.

The Sman says:

03:40am | 28/01/10

I see Mr Howe was “born in Hampshire but is now proudly an Australian” and it all becomes clear. These types are ten a penny, believing their “success” is purely down to “fair go” Australia and that back in the old country they would surely have got nowhere, sent back to the mines by some moustachioed aristocrat as soon as they dared to get above their station. I freely admit that in Australia mediocrity probably does rise further, Mr Howe is a prime example, but Australians’ obsession with Britain and constant need to denigrate and abuse the country that made them what they are and remains one of their staunchest allies in the world is an embarrassment. My only consolation is that I am one of the very few Poms who give a damn. If Aussies were to realise just how little Britain, including the Royals, care about Australia they might pull their heads in for a bit. Visit the UK and see how much coverage Australia gets, how much its “culture” impacts on Britons and you’ll be in for a shock. Finally, Mr Howe clearly loves his “jewel in the crown” notion about his adopted country. If that is the case why do the Windsors only visit once in a blue moon (the Queen every 15-20 years or so, William twice in a lifetime) and why does Charles make public statements about how he is “surprised that Australia is not a republic already”?