For the past week or so we have been paid visits by two members of Britain’s royal family – Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (5th in line to the throne) and his cousin Zara Phillips (12th in line).

In the background? Zara Phillips at the Melbourne Cup

Edward grabbed a few headlines by putting his foot in his mouth just like his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, has been doing for decades. He reckons some young Australians would be prepared to die while trying to win a Duke of Edinburgh Award. How Edward would know anything about the rough and tumble of Awards winning escapes most people.

He has been cocooned in wealth and privilege since birth; he quit the Royal Marines and opted for a life of acting instead and like most royals has never done real days work in his life.

Zara, daughter of the twice married Princess Anne and a half-royal - her father Peter Phillips is a non titled commoner - she was here to present the Melbourne Cup to the winning owner.

The cousins rose without a trace and have sunk accordingly which must outrage the dwindling band of Australian monarchists as this week marks the 10th anniversary of the failure of the referendum which should have dragged this country triumphant into the 21st Century.

But John Howard made sure the status quo remained by fudging the issue so brilliantly no one quite knew what they were really voting for.

How miffed the monarchists must be that the royal visitors were so studiously ignored while they were in our midst.

Perhaps Prince William’s three days in January will be a huge success – but how many Australians will tear themselves   away from the beach, the tennis and other wondrous summer pursuits to see a young bloke who is irrelevant to the overall scheme of things?

Professor David Flint – one of the two official members of Australia for a Constitutional Monarchy; the others are “supporters”; work that one out – would have us believe that Britain’s royal family is an Australian royal family.

If that is the case the line of succession to “our “ throne is in breach of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution which states “no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or trust under the Commonwealth”.

To succeed to the throne of Britain, and therefore the throne of Australia, there is a qualification; the job is open only to the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

Back to royal visits. They are expensive charades undertaken by non Australians who by a quirk of Constitutional nonsense have a mystical role in this country’s governance.

And the time has surely come for a change.

Barry Everingham is a commentator on royalty.

41 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • wattty says:

      07:05am | 05/11/09

      And monarchists have a quiet chuckle at the Republican who became a “Royalty”  hack and enjoyed the limelight whilst doing so.

      “Appears regularily on Australian TV.Must have missed that.

    • danj says:

      07:13am | 05/11/09

      Gee you really hate the royals don’t you? I’m probably a republican if you push me for an opinion, but I also respect the royals and think that we should welcome them if the want to call in. And bringing up the protestant thing vs the religious test etc., is really scratching for reasons to kick them out. Just wait for when we’re naturally ready, don’t try and push it. Its not going to change anything about Australia anyway.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:19am | 05/11/09

      Whether Australia is a monarchy or a republic, is in my view not important. What is, is what impact either has on the people?
      Based on all I’ve read, seen on TV or heard on the radio about this and other countries, I doubt the person in the street would notice any difference.
      Would we save money?
      Would our quality of life improve?
      Would our parliament be any more efficient?
      The answer to all these questions, is I doubt it. So why change?
      If we make any change at all, let’s stop at the PM. We get to vote for or against every three years, we have a constution, much abused and we have a judiciary, added to which for some,  we have God.

    • Viva la republic says:

      07:24am | 05/11/09

      i have three requirements for the head of state:
      1. They must live in the state they are the head of (well, duh)
      2. They must have been born in the state they are the head of
      3. If a simultaneous threat were made to us and another country, our head of state must choose us first, and without hesitation. (well, duh again)

      Failure to meet these three basic requirements means realistically, they shouldn’t be our head of state.  Prince William, our future ‘king’ has spent less than a month here in his entire life - what is he, nearly 30?  I have spent more time in England than he has here, and I have only ever been on holidays there.
      Just because someone is born into a particular family, does not endow them with the ability (or even the desire) to be a head of state for anyone, let alone a distant country they have barely even seen.  It is insulting to suggest that there is no Australian who could be our head of state.  It is even more insulting to suggest that some twat with a penchant for drunken parties and a brother who dresses up as a nazi is the right person for the job.  Or even worse, his father and ‘Queen Camilla’ (oh dear god…......please NO)
      I think we are more than capable of running ourselves, and have effectively been doing this for years.  Why should it not be official?

    • Mr Hyde says:

      07:47am | 05/11/09

      John A Neve 8:19am, Australia still being a Monarchy is important to many of us. We have a Queen of Australia, who was born overseas and will never live in the country that she reigns over. Now that she is aged she will probably no longer visit us. We need someone who is one of us to be our leader. And please, Monarchists, no obfuscation about the Governor General being head of state. If you believe that to be the case you should have no objection to the Constitution being changed to remove all references to the Monarch and the Crown etc.

    • watty says:

      07:47am | 05/11/09

      Possibly a good time for Republicans.The Queen would possibly sign off on Australia rather than have to meet the nerdy little Rudd.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:10am | 05/11/09

      Mr Hyde @08:47am
      Try answering one or two of my questions. While your at it, please tell why we need any one above the PM?
      What would they do?
      Try looking to our future, the past is long gone.

    • stu says:

      09:18am | 05/11/09

      Zara’s father is Mark Phillips (unless Barry knows something we don’t) not Peter Phillips.

    • Andrew says:

      09:19am | 05/11/09

      S 116 is not breached by the Monarchy mate. The Crown, is above the Commonwealth, not a mere office or trust under the Commonwealth. Good try though.

      If you want to become a Republic, we must change our entire government set up. 1. If you have a publicly elected head of state, they have a national personal mandate and are therefore more powerful than the leader of the sovereign Parliament. Constitutional nightmare. 2. Does the public trust our politicians enough to appoint our heads of state for the right reasons?? I don’t.
      The Republican movement is inept, great ideas, but practically hopeless and misguided.

    • Bob H says:

      09:21am | 05/11/09

      If she is our queen can we behead her when she next visits

    • Mr Hyde says:

      09:35am | 05/11/09

      John A Neve - I didn’t say we need anyone above the PM. I was saying since we have such a position, it must be an Australian. I’m not answering your other questions because I don’t think they are relevant to the debate. And how is desiring a republic not looking into the future? You are the one who seems contented with the model from the past.

    • DG says:

      09:39am | 05/11/09

      I think the push is a little premature - people don’t have anything against the Queen. Wait until Chuck takes the throne - in that moment the swing in favour of a republic will probably be at its peak.

      However, I personally think that it is a tiny proportion when compared to the numbers that really don’t care one way or the other. For the vast majority there are more important things than who rubber stamps legislation in this Country.?

    • watty says:

      10:00am | 05/11/09

      stu…how dare you try and correct a “Royals”  watcher and correspondent with intimate details of the British Royal Family ?

      I mean he actually did a “Royals” broadcast for MSNBC.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:02am | 05/11/09

      Mr Hyde @10:35am
      This whole debate is about change, so the questions in my first post are very relevant.
      As to our current model, I neither support or condemn it. What I am trying to say and I appear to have failed in your case!  Is why change if there is no benefit?
      Which of course takes us back to my first post.

    • TAH says:

      10:06am | 05/11/09

      Barry Everingham doesn’t appear to be a very acurate commentator on royalty.  Zara is Edward’s niece, not cousin!

    • Ian F says:

      10:11am | 05/11/09

      Those who seek to alter the Australian Constitution in various ways, such as to a republic, simply have to convince a majority of Australians and majorities in a majority of the States of the benefits of any change in a democratic ballot.  The republicans dismally failed to do so in 1999 and over the past decade they have since routinely sought to blame others for their failure. 

      At some expense to taxpayers, the republican movement was indulged with a national convention and subsequently a referendum based on the model it proposed.  Their proposal did not win majority support in any State, let alone nationally.  While there may be no great Australian enthusiasm for the Royal Family, there is also no real enthusiasm to change our current constitutional arrangements.

      The republicans had ample opportunity to make their case for change, we voted on it, it was not supported and they should get over it.

    • Mark says:

      10:28am | 05/11/09

      Okay the facts up front. I’m English. Lived there for the first 24 years of my Life. Lived here last 24 years. I spent 8 years paying into a fund to keep the royals in the custom they have grown accustomed too. Not once did I see any value for money. Head of state daliance into every day matters ended with Charles the second. I don’t think Charles the third is going to have anymore say than his namesake. Will he make a difference to our goverment or life here in Australia? Will changing our constitution to incur another layer of government make life better? As much as I dislike royalty I am very keen to avoid a President Rudd deciding on our supreme court as final arbiters.

    • iansand says:

      11:24am | 05/11/09

      Ian F@11:11 I think the referendum failed because the monarchist ran a very successful “divide and rule” campaign wit their “politician’s republic” line.  It was odd that their argumentabout the GG being the head of state was maintaining a “politicians’ Governor General” position, but I digress.

      If we are ever confronted with a direct election model you can be sure we will be faced with an argument about the potential power of an elected President (and that is genuinely scary) and again the referendum will fail.  In fact I would vote against a direct election model - it is genuinely worrying unless you are comfortable with the potetial of changing the way power balances in this country.

      Personally I think that the republic is a minor issue in the bottom left hand corner of the radar.  I will vote for the right model if it comes along, but do not think it is a matter of any great significance.  The country has much more important things to worry about.

    • Mr Hyde says:

      12:08pm | 05/11/09

      John A Neve, no-one but you is responsible for your failing to see the benefits of this change.  Disingenuously refusing to see the benefits of change is a common stance for conservative, backward looking people.

      iansand at 12:24 has hit on the real issue. Most people support the idea of a republic in principle but the idea breaks down over practicalities of replacement models.

      I favour the minimalist approach. The GG is renamed the President, appointed (and able to be dismissed) by a clear majority of a joint sitting of Parliament. This is an improvement on the current (potentially farcical) situation where the GG is in effect appointed by the PM, rubber stamped by the Queen. The GG is currently appointed by the PM who can also effectively sack the GG. The PM and ministers are appointed by the GG who can also sack them. In a crisis (as in 1975) it’s a matter of who gets in first. Under the changes I suggest, the power to appoint and dismiss rests ultimately with the Parliament.

      Does that shed any light on it for you, John A Neve?

    • MS says:

      12:21pm | 05/11/09

      Barry I agree with you.  These royal visits are nothing but expensive charades.  The 1986 Australia Act has removed all of the Queen’s power.  So petitioning her is totally futile. 

      She is just a puppet and does not appoint the Governor General or the State Governors, who are all politically appointed by the Premier/Prime Minister and who are nothing more than government cronies.

      Quentin Bryce a former Governor of Queensland and now GG has just spent a staggering $ 700,000 on Kevin Rudd’s UN bid.  http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26270945-421,00.html
      While staff are fleeing the regime of the Governor General http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/staff-flee-regime-of-australian-governor-1806293.html

      Let us get rid of the constitutional monarchy and the parasites associated with it, which costs us heaps and gives us nothing in return. 

      At the same time we need a complete rewrite of the constitution from the people, by the people and for the people to reflect 21st century values. 

      Fascism never has and never will serve the public interest.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:31pm | 05/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 1308hrs.
      In anser to your question; No.
      Once again you have failed to address any of my questions!
      What you have done is told me many things I already knew, but as to any benefits, not a word from you!! No, on second thoughts I’m not surprised, you are still living in yesteryear. Head of state bullshit, why do we need a head of state?

    • Razor says:

      12:33pm | 05/11/09

      I am a Monarchist simply because I have yet to be convinced that changing our current governance arrangements will make for better governance or save the taxpayer money.  That said, I could give a tinker’s cuss what happens to the Royals.

    • Mr Hyde says:

      01:10pm | 05/11/09

      Well, you know what they say, John A Neve, none so blind etc. How am I ‘living in yesteryear’? I’ve put forward an idea for beneficial change. You haven’t. You are the one apparently content with yesteryear. I’ve already said I don’t necessarily support a head of state, just that there is one and it doesn’t work so well and here is how it could work better. It wouldn’t worry me particularly if there was no such position, but I see no-one putting that forward and stating how the changes to the constitution would work.

    • watty says:

      01:11pm | 05/11/09

      Mark must be pleased to have moved to Australia to see how to spend taxpayer’s money wisely on our many Heads of State.

      As for Mr Jekyll and Mr.Hyde…..the Governor General for President.

      If you are referring to the present one I would rather have the eldest idiot son of the Queen.

    • Rob says:

      01:15pm | 05/11/09

      Republicans are always so desperate to say that monarchists numbers are dwindling, etc, yet here is no empirical evidence to actually suggest they are. And, for heaven’s sake, the referendum was lost fair and square. It’s hilarious that people still can’t get over that loss.

    • stephen says:

      01:27pm | 05/11/09

      Be yer own leader. Stop lookin’ fer a head of state, or king or queen or a rip/roaring PM (with that extra flash of dash) to make you feel good. All these ‘symbols’ don’t matter a tinker’s damn. Be the best person yer can be, and don’t elsewhere for your worth.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:32pm | 05/11/09

      Yet another vituperating stream of conscious rant from (self-described) “royal watcher” Barry Everingham.

      Disappointingly, Barry’s fabrications of his ‘involvements’ within the upper echelons of the Royal Family seem to have been overlooked here.

      Nevermind, the Australian newspaper archive has quite a comprehensive list.

      So too his hilarious ‘endorsement’ of the (apparently pro-republican) current Governor-General Quenmtin Bryce which is nothing short of breath-taking.

      After running a fetid campaign of disinformation in the lead-up to the Republic referendum, Everingham has sought to provide highly amusing ‘opinion’ through various media channels in the wake of its resounding defeat.

      This is accomplished largely through varying degress of childhood hissy fits and bouts of extreme sooking and misanthropic bile for those who do not share his tedious ‘Eddie for Prez’ iconoclasm.

      Thankfully, through the pages of ‘The Punch’, Barry can momentarliy peek out from under his own cloak of invisibility to provide for popular consumption the mirth and merriment for which he has become legendary.

    • John A Neve says:

      01:41pm | 05/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 1410hrs.
      You just won’t commit will you?
      You talk about “benficial change”, so I’ll ask yet again what benefits?
      Do you know what you really want?

    • Liz says:

      01:55pm | 05/11/09

      How can you be a
      “half Royal”? They’re expensive,irrelevant to our country and it’s time we stopped offering them free holidays.

    • Reg says:

      02:20pm | 05/11/09

      Given that a significant (40%) and growing percentage of Australians have no connection to Britain, I believe that maintaining a foreigner as our head of state adversely affects our ability to grow as a nation. How can we encourage muslims, hindus, buddhists catholics and those Australians whose heritage is from continental Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle east to think and see themselves as Australians when we maintain a purile link to England and the royal family?

      It is hypocritical to demand that people become “Australian” when as a nation we don’t have the confidence to clearly articulate what an Australian is in the 21st Century. I can tell you one thing, the quicker we get rid of the Union Jack in the flag and appoint an Australian Head of State, the quicker we will be able to assert our independance and grow as a Nation. Until then we will continue a servile existence as evidenced by the Union Jack’s pride of place in the flag.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      02:38pm | 05/11/09

      “...Until then we will continue a servile existence as evidenced by the Union Jack’s pride of place in the flag…”

      Like Hawaii does right Reg?

      And New Zealand.

    • GeeJay says:

      02:43pm | 05/11/09

      Reg-I am in total agreement with you,i cringe when i see our so called flag flying.Let us become proper Aussies!

    • Ian F says:

      02:57pm | 05/11/09

      When you migrate to a country there is a sense in which you also inherit or adopt its history (for example, a British citizen emigrating to the United States can end up celebrating the 4th of July). 

      When people want to become Australian citizens, they are required to make a Pledge of Commitment.  I doubt that our existing constitutional arrangements deter many people from seeking to become one of us.

    • GarryM says:

      03:04pm | 05/11/09

      I think some Australians have a real identity problem. Australia is Australia, you do not hear anywhere ‘Oh Australia its really an annex of the United Kingdom’. Australian backpackers get ‘oh but your passport is really English and I hate Manchester United’ or even, ‘Do you know my cousin he lives in Birmingham, you must you are British are you not?’

      Come on people, are you so scared of another ‘God save the Queen for nothing will save the ....’

      Australia has an identity, it is in the face of every person who settles here. Every person who becomes an Australian is collectively adding to Australia not the United Kingdom.

      Australia has a way so unlike the UK, new arrivals do not have an identity crisis. AS Reg compaired the monachy to confusing Muslims, Catholics, Hundus coming to Australia as that is religion not Race or Culture people of any faith can be their faith wether we are a monachy or republic. 

      The Monachy may be something of old but hell, its history, it is part of Australian history and to deny that is very Orwell.

      Do we change, I have an opinion on that but if the majority of Australian people vote to change that, I will agree with that decision as it is democracy in action. But we must remember if we do so will we be seen so differently by those Reg (03.20) says we are subservant too… I wonder if people who come here will still say ‘Ah but you have been ‘servile’ to the UK so long whats the difference now’ . 

      We are linked to the UK by so much history and friendship, that even with a break we will be linked back by those who still have problems with identity.
      However I feel if we still continue to have a fixation on the royal family, trying to say how bad they are for us, how they hide among us at a horse race or how much their security costs (which I wonder if another royal family from around the world came here would cost us less) we will be looked on as part of the old country.

      We have an identity, lets not loose our direction on that

    • Mr Hyde says:

      03:48pm | 05/11/09

      John A Neve, I’ve told you, if you want to read properly. A better way to resolve consitutional deadlock than we had in 1975. A better sense of national identity than under a foreign monarch. It would cost no more and arguably, less. Are you really that hard to communicate with or is this more of your disingenuity? Either way, enough of you, for me.
      Margaret Gray, in your posts in The Punch you frequently claim to be amused at some of the discussion.  I see that elsewhere, someone called you the ‘Queen of Hate’. The truth may be somewhere in between, but your attempts to rebutt other viewpoints through ridicule don’t come off, for mine.

    • Sam says:

      03:54pm | 05/11/09

      Barry it would have been nice if you checked your facts before you submitted your rant. Edward and Zara are not cousins, Edward is Zara’s Uncle.
      That being said the Republians lost the referendum as they spent too much time in fighting, and not coming up with a reason to change other than for changes such. You lost fair and square.

    • Megan says:

      04:22pm | 05/11/09

      I can’t stop laughing, Zara’s Edwards neice not cousin and her father is Capt Mark Philips not Peter Philips…I’m not even a royal watcher, Barry you really know your stuff LOL I’m sure most Aussies couldn’t care less but it’s still funny to me.

    • Michael says:

      05:37pm | 05/11/09

      You monarchists keep telling yourself that the 1999 victory will stop the republic it won’t, the next generation will have its say some day and you will loose. People should not be born into power and any right thinking person would oppose those who are, but of course no doubt many of you monarchists were born with a silver spoon in some opening of your body.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:08pm | 05/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 1648hrs.
      You should have been a pollie, post after post and you have told us nothing. “A better way to resolve a deadlock” how so?
      “It would cost no more”, I suggest it would cost a lot more, if we all knew what you intended?
      Just what do you have in mind Mr Hyde?

    • Irene McFarlane says:

      03:06am | 18/11/10

      The cost of Changing the Constitution and becoming a Republic will be high someting we cannot afford at present, a referendum has already rejected it . No doubt there will be another in the future maybe when the Queen dies. There is no benefit for the people.  As far as head of state is concerned a President is a politician don’t we have enough politicians are there any amongst them that you would seriously consider for a President I know I wouldn’t and how many Republics around the world have been dogged with corruption and greed

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

This is the week that Craig Thomson defended himself in Parliament, Schapelle Corby got clemency and…

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter