The Australian monarchists are divided – David Flint and his tightly controlled Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) claim the Governor General is the Australian head of state while Philip Benwell and his Australian Monarch League (AML) are with the Republicans – it’s the foreign non resident unelected British Queen who holds this nation’s top job.

Republican ridicule from The Australian's Bill Leak.

Ten years up the track, the debate is simmering away under the surface and right now Flint is holding the trump cards – he is said to pull in half a million dollars a year towards his cause which is remarkable considering ACM has only two members – Flint and his sidekick former Roman Catholic seminarian Thomas Flynn. The movement’s constitution is clever; its run by the pair with the help of would be members, who are non voting “supporters”

Professor Flint’s latest take on the vexed subject of a republic revolves around the quaint notion that if we change the constitution we’ll have a “politician’s republic”. He fails to mention we are now laboring under a “politician’s monarchy” – a point Tony Blair underscored when he pulled the Queen into line over her unbelievable indifference to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.

Kevin Rudd to a lesser extent drew attention to just who runs the vice-regal show here when he dispatched Quentin Bryce on her highly successful African odyssey to garner support for an Australian seat on the UN Security Council. Although Elizabeth and Quentin are thoroughly professional and independent women they know part of the job is to do what their political masters demand – they know we have a politician’s monarchy and they certainly know which side of the bread the butter is.

Long before Blair and Rudd were born, King George V became the cipher-monarch. In 1926 Britain was brought to standstill by the miners strike caused by mine owners reducing workers wages. George V demanded he be consulted, he warned against it and cautioned the government to be wary. He was given what has become know as the one-finger salute; the strike went ahead. The king was ignored.

But as the years roll on the Buckingham Palace circus becomes less and less relevant to us and its members less and less identifiable. Charles – our next head of state plods along in a state of happiness now he has been able to marry his long-time mistress while his boys – William and Harry are doing well what all young blokes do, whatever their stations in life. The Queen’s other children work hard for Britain ; Andrew spends his life pushing UK trade around the world, daughter Anne makes sure the British Olympic team is well looked after while Edward does whatever he does and we’re not quite sure what that is.

The royal family is one of the world’s most extraordinary collection of people It’s headed by Elizabeth, her country’s 41st monarch – and her descendants and cousins have no jobs in the accepted sense of the word and they as a rule can almost never go to the movies or to a restaurant on the spur of the moment; it’s a family whose influence resides in not being seen to exercise it.
It typifies everything English, not Australian, although its main members have more German blood than English.  The late Queen Mother and Princess Diana were the only English mothers of future monarchs for centuries.

Successive monarchs of Great Britain illustrated their indifference to this country by ignoring it. Queen Victoria almost made it by threatening her Prime Minister Lord Palmerstone “that I will pack up my family and move to Australia if you continue to oppose me!”

Her successor Edward V11 was too busy carousing – his mistress was Camilla Parker Bowles’s great grandmother - and gambling to make the journey while his son George V was busy concentrating on his stamp collection and terrorizing his children to make the journey as monarch although he and his wife, Mary, as Duke and Duchess of York did come here for Federation celebrations.

Edward V111 – who put the whole subject of hereditary monarchy into perspective by Abdicating so he could wed his twice divorced American mistress – did visit as Prince of Wales his lasting legacy of that trip seems to be a few illegitimate children.

He was succeeded Elizabeth’s father, George V1 and his wife Elizabeth – another Duke and Duchess of York. They   were here in their ducal capacities open Canberra’s Parliament House in 1927 This colony was never important enough to warrant a real royal tour until the present Queen undertook a visit as part of a Commonwealth tour   in the 1950’s.

The monarchists would have us believe that the royal family, under our constitution is the Australian royal family. If that is so, some of its rules concerning the Line of Succession to “our” throne laugh at section 116 of the Australian Constitution which states unequivocally “that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or trust under the Commonwealth”.

As things stands be the Australian head of state – a job out of reach to all Australians there are several requirements – the most insulting being that its occupants MUST be Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, who incidentally died several hundred years ago. They cannot be divorcees and if they happened to born on the wrong side of the blanket, well tough luck.

This state of affairs in egalitarian Australia is ridiculous – it insults, Jews, Christians of all non Protestant faiths, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, the entire rich mosaic of Australian religious life and culture.

Why this state of affairs isn’t corrected is a national disgrace. Every Australian head of government and their opposition counterparts are Republicans, the Governor General herself sees the inevitability of an Australian republic and her states counterparts are in agreement.

The time is right for Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull to sit down together and prepare a joint statement on the issue with Malcolm desisting from regurgitating his “we must wait until the Queen dies” qualification. The Windsors are known for their longevity – if we wait for her demise we might be landed with William, a nice lad but for God’s sake what does he –or his father for that matter – know about Australia?

And while we are on that subject, what has the hard working scandal free Queen of England ever done for Australia? If the English want an ethnic German royal family, that’s their call.  However somewhere out there is an Australian ready to be the first President of the Republic of Australia. He or she needs to be installed without further delay.

Most commented

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Stephen Pickells says:

      07:43am | 22/09/09

      “It is a complete misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch. It doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people. If at any time any nation decides that the system is unacceptable, then it is up to them to change it.”
      Prince Philip’s views on republicanism: Canada 1969

    • Liz says:

      08:10am | 22/09/09

      Long overdue that we abandon this ridiculous concept of a monarchy that has nothing to do with us here in Australia.Roll on Republic Day and soon!

    • John A Neve says:

      08:18am | 22/09/09

      Republic or monarchy, the impact on the people will be zero. Until we get
      true Democracy the people will suffer. A two party political system is only one step away from dictatorship.
      The rules that govern elections precludes many good candidates and has done for years. What is required is for the GG to do the job they are appointed to. Stick to the letter of our constitution.

    • Stephen says:

      08:36am | 22/09/09

      Barry’s article appears to be in favour of retaining the monarchy.

      He says that the GG effectively does what the government says.  It seems to me that that’s a good thing 99% of the time.  Imagine the instability otherwise!  In fact its the kind of instability we’ll get under a republican system where the President is elected, because to be elected the prospective President will need to commit to a political manifesto. 

      What happens if that manifesto doesn’t coincide with an existing or future government’s manifesto.  What happens when the President refuses to proclaim the government’s legislation because it doesn’t fit their own electoral promises?  Who decides which manifesto is legitimate?  I suppose it’ll be the President because the President controls the army.

      As for his other arguments about who sleeps with who, well that adds colour to our otherwise drab existence.  Womans Weekly and New Idea attest to how we love all that stuff.

    • Socrates says:

      08:56am | 22/09/09

      Some people may love Womens Monthly and No Idea, but most of us might hope for something a bit better for the nation.

      It probably doesn’t make much difference either way, but the need for an Australian head of state comes into sharper focus when we see the British royal family being used (quite properly) to promote British interests.  This sometimes involves acting against the interests of Australia, which is an unusual thing for the Queen of Australia to be doing.

    • David says:

      09:23am | 22/09/09

      Bring on the republic. Abolish state governments while they’re doing it too.

    • Alex Fishburn says:

      11:37am | 22/09/09

      Hang on a minute. How can Barry say Philip Benwell agrees with republicans that the Queen is Head of State? Benwell is well known as a supporter of the view that the Governor-General is head of state. Did Barry do any research for this piece at all???

      Here are some quotations from Benwell’s writings over the years, collected in his book “In Defence of Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy”.

      Nov 1996: “...we have as our resident Head of State ...the Governor-General…”

      Aug 2001: “republicans repeat in a parrot like fashion, ‘We want an Australian Head of State’.  I have news for republicans. If we have a Head of State we have one in the Governor- General and he is an Australian.”

      He quotes Sir Harry Gibbs CJ who said “there is a strong argument that the governor-General, although representative of the Queen, is the Head of State of Australia.”

      2003: “...if we are to have a Head of State, it should be the Governor-General.”

      Sop now he thinks the queen is Head of State. But what has changed? Either Everingham is wrong or Benwell can’t be taken seriously.

    • Simon says:

      11:41am | 22/09/09

      Barry, guess what? The monarchical system works!! And works very well including its ability to adapt to modern values: the impending changes to the succession laws mean at least one old argument (that it’s a sectarian institution) will lose validity. Your final paragraph is absurd. The Queen of England - and what she represents - have done an amazing job in enabling Australia to become a free, law-abiding country with an impressive political system and culture. Long may it continue!

    • Jeff Mueller says:

      12:25pm | 22/09/09

      I think you’ll find the Queen Mother was Scottish, not English

    • Bob says:

      01:01pm | 22/09/09

      Sorry, I accept that we obviously need a governing body to some degree. But can someone please advise me why we need a head of state at all?

    • RT says:

      01:16pm | 22/09/09

      The article overlooks the fact the the GG has the absolute discretion to dismiss the elected government. This decision is not subject to any challenge or appeal.  The GG is appointed by the PM in effect and may be effectively dismissed by the PM. The PM is appointed in effect by the GG (by demonstrating the support of the House) and may be dismissed by the GG as above. So, both the PM and GG have the power to appoint and dismiss each other. In the event of dismissal, its a case of whomever gets in first. In 1975, it was the GG, but it could have been the PM had he been quicker. People say ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. If that ain’t broke, dunno what is.

    • Michael says:

      01:30pm | 22/09/09

      Well said Barry, about time someone touched on the religious reasons behind the staunch support for a person born into riches and privilege.

    • Roy says:

      02:20pm | 22/09/09

      “If the English want an ethnic German family that’s their call” -Barry Everingham.
      It’s not so much their German ethnicity that gets my goat, it’s their close connections to the Nazis before, during and after WWII. The former king of Australia, Edward VIII, was an admirer of Hitler. When he met the Fuhrer he gave the Nazi salute and cried “Heil Hitler!” He said that Hitler was a great man and the saviour of Europe. The British Secret service kept a very close eye on the former king during WWII suspecting him of being a German spy.

      Through her marriage to Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbug-Glucksburg alias Battenberg alias Mountbatten the present queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, had a brother-in-law who was Panzer division commander on the western front and he and his troops would have killed many Allied soldiers including many Diggers. The Panzer division commander was Prince Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg. He married Philip’s eldest sister, Margarita. Gottfried survived the war.

      Philip had another sister, Sophie, who married Prince Christopher of Hesse.
      He was a Luftwaffe pilot. British war historian, Lord Lambton, wrote that Christoper of Hesse was the pilot of the plane that bombed Buckingham Palace. The German royal connections have a long history of keeping it in the family!!  Christoper and Sophie had a son named after the Fuhrer - Adolf. Adolf is Philip and Eliabeth’s nephew! Had it not been for the fact that Prince Christoper of Hesse, Luftwaffe pilot, was killed in action for the Fuhrer and Fatherland in 1944 there is no way that Princess Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor would have been allowed to marry Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sondenburg-Glucksburg alias Battenberg alias Mountbatten, the brother-in-law of a man, who, had he survived the war, would have been on trial before the War Crimes Tribunal. Prior to her wedding the bride-to-be requested that her German Nazi in-laws be invited to her wedding. The British government very firmly declined her request. The question should never have been asked in the first place.
      Every time I see the Queen lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Day I remember her Nazi connections and I remember as a small boy sheltering under the stairs as German planes bombed where I lived. And I wonder at the hypocrisy of it all.

    • rufus says:

      03:00pm | 22/09/09

      Alex Fishburn: if the GG is the head of state, why does he/she have the job of representing the Queen in Australia? Why must he/she quietly fade into the background whenever the Queen is performing official duties in Australia such as opening Parliament? If the GG is head of state, please remind us again just what it is that monarchists are so committed to defending?

    • Huntergate says:

      03:23pm | 22/09/09

      We live in a democracy which, like my old VW, splutters along from one bump to another. It travels so slowly from one point to another. The two party system is dogged by party Whips tho enforce party voting solidarity, and no liberty for MPs to vote independently in the interests of their electors, or for their conscience (if they have that).

      I would like to see an Australian head 0f state elected by Australian citizens. Given the factional parties that form governments and opposition in this country, the electors will have enormous hope that the Person Elected has the vision, learning and wit to represent them in a way that demonstrates a fierce independence from politicians and a deep regard for the interests and welfare of the population. This aspiration may be difficult to achieve, but never since this country was colonised has the monarchy acted in this way. No! I do not want an English monarch as my head of state. Bring on the Republic.

    • Arco says:

      04:43pm | 22/09/09

      Bazza would do well to check the name of Prof Flint’s organisation. He always gets it wrong. If he can’t get something so simple correct, what can we make of the rest of his argument?

    • AT says:

      05:29pm | 22/09/09

      Simon@11:41am

      This is not a rhetorical question: could you cite examples of the “amazing job” the Queen has done “enabling Australia to become a free, law-abiding country with an impressive political system and culture.”? Also, is it even remotely possible that Australia achieved this level of accomplishment regardless of Her Majesty’s beneficence?

      Thank you, I look forward to your response.

    • Michael says:

      12:01am | 23/09/09

      After reading what Roy has to say, i’ve got even more reason to say yet again Elizabeth II is not my queen and I detest that our armed forces pray for her, that her picture is in every mess hall like we should worship her like a communist chairman, I think the more people get to know the real story behind the fairytale they won’t be so keen for her to represent us.

    • Lyn says:

      12:42pm | 25/09/09

      Barry how is it that The ACM brings in half a million dollars a year when there are effectively only 2 people running the show? Surely they aren’t still being funded by the government are they?? I seem to remember some slight of hand under the Howard government when they achieved funding status under some nebulous charter of educational research or some such thing. Can you research whether that is still the case and if so, the Rudd government needs to explain why this is continuing, The republican movement does not receive any public funding so that is a huge advantage for Flint et al to hammer home their arguments.

    • Ron says:

      01:11am | 11/10/09

      It’s interesting that many of the obviously historically inept and deficiently researched comments by most people on this blog including the original ‘braniac’ who composed the opening article filled with inaccuracies, decry the German origins of the monarch as if she was a foreigner in her own land. These same people would be horrified if they were described as ‘foreigners’ because their origins too are from other countries originally. Or do these people think they have the right to be called Australians when their ancestors arrived here from Britain or some other country? Fair go, please. Stop crying about our poliical system and wake up to the fact that the very reason you can talk such rubbish in the first place is that the constitutional monarchy in place in this great nation guarantees your right to do so. I would not be so certain that this would remain the case should be be so witless as to institute a republic. Just look at the Frenc h and German multiple attempts at republics! Or do you seriously believe they have benefited by overthrowing their rightful rulers?? Wake up, smeel the roses and get on with living in freedom under the greatest system in the world

    • Mark says:

      06:14pm | 29/10/09

      Can anyone argue that our current system hasnt worked? Furthermor I can not see how in a republic a President could repesent the entire community the way a monarch does.

      Firstly if the parliment elects the President then the President only represents the parliment and isnt constitutional either. The second system where the people elect the President would result in the President representing the slight majority who voted for him/her. Politicians tend to favour their electorate, or areas they think they could win votes, over those they see as a lost cause.

      If you look at countrys with constitutional monarchs the monarchs have much, much higher approveral ratings (ratings a politician could only dream of).

      Also my understanding seems to be that people arnt necessarily in favour of a republic but an Australian head of state who lives in Australia. Why not then have one of our royals move here and have them as our head of state, in other words have our own monarch, sperate from all other countrys. A monarch brings the people closer together than any President, and represents the entire people, as they have no political ties.

      Look at republics, most of them would be consdiered a failed state. I believe we in Australia have the balance perfect. I would however be in favour of bringing one of the princess or princes over here to be our own head of state.

      Be interested to know other peoples opions on getting our own resident monarch.  Cheers

    • TJ says:

      08:34am | 22/02/11

      What low blows not only to the Queen and the Royal Family but to the British/ English people in general. We are one family the last time I checked, a commonwealth of nations, of borthers and sisters, where we (Britain) has done alot for the commonwealth. Her Majesty has made donations and appeals of her own private money during times of tragedy in different commonwealth nations, the latets being the Australian flooding, and has rewarded mentions of honour and merit to those in every commonwealth nation. This article was very unfair, biased, and goes to show the authors true ignorance if he does not know the hard working jobs of the royals. The Royal family’s German roots came from Prince Albert who became more British than most of the English at that time. To use Germanic roots to degrade the House of Windsor is wrong and insulting. I could go on for hours, but I will stop here. God Save The Queen, long may she reign!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter