Victoria needs more pomp and circumstance rather than blandness

The Age’s and The Sunday Age’s dislike for anything royal is well-known. But this Sunday’s attack takes it to a new level. In today's editorial Return to vice-regal pomp risks alienating Victorians The Sunday Age ridiculously praises governors who breached their Oath of Allegiance by “proposing changes to the constitution that would remove references to the monarchy to allow a transition to a republic”. It might be added doing so without any reference to the people.

Too much pomp? Governor de Kretser inspecting a guard of the Royal Australian Navy.

What was Governor Alex Chernov’s crime according to The Sunday Age?

“Mr Chernov wants functions at Government House to be run on a 'non-commercial basis'. Yet at the fashion festival launch, he acknowledged the festival was 'a significant major event' and one of the 'world's leading events of its kind'. It is also an important part of the economy, and subsidised by taxpayers - as is the Governor himself while he holds the office and lives in his elegant residence with its landscaped gardens. (At the fashion party, Mr Chernov invited guests to inspect some of the rooms.)”

For The Sunday Age only a republican governor is a good governor. But the editorialist goes further by deciding what is relevant to Victorians and what is not. It’s in the same logic that s/he determines: “They [vice-regal appointments] exist for historic and legal reasons but also represent a world view and system of government that is no longer relevant to many Australians.” By the term “to many Australians” it is clear, that the opposite is equally true: To many Australians vice-regal appointments are a significant part of the political structure for the state and the federation itself. While the Monarch is absent, the Governors(-General) represent the crown. It is highly bizarre that the Fairfax editorialist expects them to act as promoters of republicanism.

Significantly The Sunday Age’s agitation led nowhere. When checking the editorial on-line, the RadicalRoyalist was the only one reading it. Doesn’t say that all about The Sunday Age's relevance?

Swearing-in ceremony of Victoria's 28th Governor

Read More

Another ex-pat lectures us

If one would be as rude as republicans usually are, one could say, The Sunday Age’s new attack on the Monarchy came from a typical suspect. Kathy Lette’s photo in today’s paper showed a woman with short hair and long dingle dangly earrings. Sorry, the photo is not online, but the article is: Where there's a Wills …

However if you check her website you find, that Kathy Lette actually does not live in Australia: “She lives in London with her husband and two children and has just finished a stint as writer in Residence at London's Savoy Hotel.” But Fairfax media hide this fact, giving the impression of an Aussie writer publishing for other Aussies. The Sunday Age loves British authors who lecture the stupid Monarchists down under that they should grow up and do, what their senior teachers in the media keep telling them to accept. Of course it is rather impolite and ungentlemanly towards a lady who calls herself “a full time writer, demented mother” to point to her stereotype appearance, but considering what she wrote about our Royal Family, it seems rather adequate. Here are some quotes of her latest oeuvre with false and insulting accusations:

- does the prospect of a tree-hugging, pinstripe underpanted heir to the throne

- why has a pampered Pommy Prince [William] won our affection?

- In royal circles you're considered an exhibitionist if you wear open-toed sandals.

- British royals make the Addams Family look normal. What with the toe sucking, the bulimia, the affairs, the fancy dress Nazi uniforms, Andy's paedophile pals and Fergie and Sophie Wessex's cash-for-access scandals, the Windsors put the 'fun' into 'dysfunctional'

- it's time Australia had a Windsor-ectomy

Her claim ”...which is why recent polls have revealed a steady decline in support for the monarchy...” shows, how out of touch she is with Australia: The figures show a rise on the Monarchist and a decline on the republican side, with the latter having fallen far behind the figures of 1999, when they lost the referendum by 54 to 46%.

You have to feel sorry for the Fairfax media. They tried their best to find another writer than the usual three republican pens – and then they have to rely on someone who lives overseas and lectures the Aussies what is best for them. And fails to understand the reality.

Read More

A critic's view

Sometimes you have to wonder, if incompetence is a precondition to become a film or TV critic. Should you work for the Fairfax media, this alone would not qualify you for the job. A critic must be a raging republican with the ability to abuse the Australian Monarchy at every moment.

Take for example Louise Schwarzkoff, who gave her “critic’s view” on the new SBS series on the Danish Royal Family The Kingdom: Behind the Scenes (to be seen on SBS Two every Friday evening at 8 pm). "The British royal family could never allow a camera crew such access inside its palaces."

Nothing could be more wrong than her opening sentence. After having watched part one of the Danish documentary on 25th February one is reminded of the British series A Year with the Royal Family, shown in Australia in February 2008 on Channel Nine. The style was very similar. The cameras got very close access to Prince Philip who took the TV crew on a ride. The microphones caught very funny statements from Princess Anne and Prince Edward on how they feel when they are “on royal duty”. Not to mention the very impressive testimony of The Duke of Gloucester, who - as son of an Australian Governor-General - spent a couple of years in Australia.

On the first evening A Year with the Royal Family attracted 1.33 million viewers across the nation. This led the more serious programmes, Borderline with 0.989 viewers, Top Gear with 0.799 and the return of Kerry O' Brien to the 7.30 Report, with 0.657 viewers.

Louise Schwartzkoff was obviously not among the 1.33 Australians who watched the British documentary. May be she was appalled by her colleague Tim Elliott’s cranky sausage remarks in The Age on 4th February 2008:

Any program on the English monarchy is bound to be of interest, if only because you sit watching, hoping against hope, to spot a visible panty line or hear, perhaps, HRH inquiring of her Guard at Arms where one might find the crapper. For more than a year, the makers of this six-part documentary were granted "intimate access" to the workings of the British royal family, with tonight's opener focusing on a state visit to the US.

You can hardly expect Big Brother but hopes of any insights are fast extinguished, smothered by Cate Blanchett's fawning narration and an impenetrable blanket of cliches: we hear how hard the White House flower arranger has worked and get some meaningless waffle from Dale Haney, the presidential dog walker.

The Queen, meanwhile, comes across as a cranky old sausage, bored with the ceaseless sycophancy and pointless appointments. "I can't be everywhere," she says, with a dyspeptic smirk. "I can't do everything."

Their Fairfax colleague Larry Schwartz, however, actually watched the documentary and admitted: “You don’t need to be a monarchist to be impressed by this six-part series that tonight sets out to show “what it means to sit on a 20th-century-throne”. (The Age, 18th February 2008).

And another quote from the Melbourne newspaper: A BBC series, recently aired on Channel Nine, Monarchy: the Royal Family at work gives an unprecedented peek into the life and work of Queen Elizabeth and her family over the course of a year. (The Sunday Age, March 2008).

Agreed, you cannot watch everything, but before a critic hits out (Louise Schwartzkoff: “The personable Scandinavians could teach the scandal-plagued House of Windsor a thing or two.”) a journalist's duty must be to consult the own newspaper's archive. Or is the knowledge of how to keep an archive in the times of Google and Wikipedia already lost? Fairfax journalism reached a new low point.

Read More

A Royal Response

After last week’s Sunday Age published the result of the latest opinion poll indicating that support for a republic in Australia has slumped to a 16-year low, today’s Sunday Age published three letters to the editor. None came from a republican. The first writer points out:

"Perhaps we wonder what we'd get if we appointed our own head of state or, more likely, had one appointed for us by whichever boy's club was making decisions at the time.

"After all, in Victoria we have an unelected premier who, in the company of a couple of mates, makes decisions related to planning or public works on our behalf behind closed doors and refuses to tell us how much the consequences of those decisions will cost us (for example, the desalination plant).

"At the same time, he's entertaining people who can financially benefit from these decisions and seeking donations from them to enhance the finances of his own political party, with the intention of using that money to advertise that party [in order] to keep himself and his mates in power. Well, we wouldn't want an Australian head of state like that, would we? God save the Queen!"

The second asks:

"If the media has its way and we pass a referendum, what model would be adopted?

"The American public is split down the middle with their "popularly elected" president. The US president is elected by far fewer than 50 per cent of the voters. The British monarch presides over the British Commonwealth of nations of which we are a part. The current monarch has held the position since 1952. In that time, the US has had 12 presidents and are about to embark on the divisive process again. Please do not inflict that on us.

"Let us adhere to what works for us."

The third has a particular demand to the editor of The Sunday Age:

"Does the new opinion poll mean that The Sunday Age will return to reporting in a fair and unbiased way on the Australian monarchy?"

The editor did not give an answer to this question. Only time will tell if unbiased journalism returns to The Sunday Age or any other Fairfax publication.

Read More

Australian republicanism at 16-year low

That must have cost The Sunday Age some tears: To admit that "more Australians [are] favouring retaining the monarchy" than to make Australia a republic.

Despite some re-emerging political momentum for the republican cause, voters appear increasingly apathetic about the idea of replacing the Queen and governor-general with an Australia head of state, although many are prepared to accept a republic after Queen Elizabeth's reign ends.

An Age/Nielsen poll taken earlier this month shows support for a republic is now running at 44 per cent. This is the lowest level since 1994, and well down from the peak of 57 per cent in 1999, the year the question was tested in a national referendum.

The national poll of 1400 people found almost half (48 per cent) are now against the idea. Such a level of hostility has not been recorded since the late 1970s, when about 61 per cent were against a republic.

Republicans put all their hope in the Queen of Australia's death - as if the people would rush out in a referendum and kick out King Charles. Can you think of anything more "un-Australian" than to deny a newcomer a fair chance to show his talents?


This idea shows that Australian republicanism is an inplausible concept.

Read More

Who deserves a chance?

The Sunday Age has urged its audience to vote for the ALP: “With no great enthusiasm, we say the ALP should be returned on Saturday.” Why? “Gillard deserves her chance”. That really sums it up.

Interestingly enough, the editorial did not mention one reason for a Gillard vote that is usually so dear to the Fairfax media: A republic. Not one hint to vote for Labor because of the party’s republican agenda. What does this tell us? No hope for “a” republic under Gillard? In order not to embarrass her, better don’t mention “a” republic. Or should Monarchists not be driven into the Coalition’s arms? After all, a third of the Labor voters said No to a republic in the 1999 referendum. In this close electoral race every vote counts and could decide who shall form the next Australian government.

During the election campaign Julia Gillard has kept quiet on the republic issue. At the National Press Club in Canberra mid-July “Ms Gillard has said that she does not sense that the republic debate is a burning issue for Australians and has refused to promise that she will hold a referendum if elected.”

"Where the republic debate went wrong was that it became too much about what people like me think and not enough about what Australian community thinks. This has to be about a community consensus and I don't believe we are there yet."

What if she never gets there?

Read More

Aussie Republicans cling to wishful thinking

Contrary to his convictions ARM chairman Major-General Michael Keating must have had one or two or more toasts in honour of Queen’s Birthday. How else is it possible, that he sees double figures? According to the traditional and tired pro-republican Queen’s Birthday article in today’s Sunday Age, he claimed: "Sixty to 80 per cent of people are republicans and half of them vote for the Coalition." These figures are about double of the usual republican paid opinion polls and have nothing to do with reality. But wishful thinking characterizes the Australian republican existence.

Of course Queen’s Birthday is always a day of hope for republicans. They cling to the idea that they can raise enough discomfort with Australia’s oldest holiday to fill their ranks with fighters for constitutional change. This year’s republican hope lies with the opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey, “who has taken over from Malcolm Turnbull as the torchbearer for republican sentiment within the Liberal Party” as The Sunday Age put it. However, Mr. Hockey poured water into the republican wine and said the Coalition was unlikely to adopt a party position on the republic but leave it as a matter for individuals.
No progress for republicanism in Australia. Happy Queen’s Birthday, folks!!

Read More

"Viva la revolution"

The headline “Viva la revolution” is not mine, heaven forbid, but The Sunday Age chose this title (without an exclamation mark) for a letter to the editor. It is possible that The Sunday Age just wanted to show their wide range of tolerance, when they printed a letter sent in by “Joseph Toscano, spokesperson, Anarchist Media Institute”. And although anarchist Jo swaggered about the “revolutionary impact” of the World Wide Web and “the throes of a revolution that will lead to the democratisation of every aspect of our lives”, I cannot find "Viva la revolution" in his letter, and I doubt he had chosen the headline.

I am afraid I must blame the editor of The Sunday Age for the mistaken headline. It is wrong for various reasons, but first of all, because it is a mix of several languages. “Viva” is Spanish, but “la revolution” is French. Or you could say “la” is Spanish and French, but “revolution" could be English. A clever combination of three world languages? Oh no, you overestimate the subtlety of The Sunday Age.

It is more likely that it is pure ignorance that led to this headline. Like in the republic question the media don’t know, where they want us to got to. They could have chosen “Vive la revolution!” (with an exclamation mark), which would have been the French grammatical form of the Subjonctif, which is used, when a wish should be expressed, like: ”We wish that the revolution lives!”. The Sunday Age may very well think that, I can’t possibly comment.

The French Subjonctif has an equivalent in Spanish, the subjuntivo, which also expresses wishful thinking, but the English/French word “revolution” has a different spelling in Spanish: "revolución".

The Sunday Age did not bother about these minor language problems. Which poses the question, why The Sunday Age wishes to have a revolution/revolución? Certainly, the anarchist spokesperson would not mind having one, neither a French nor a Spanish/Cuban/Venezuelan etc., but the owners of a weekly publication that is interested in generating money (among other things by charging for access to online content) would be appalled should the profit decline. Republican or revolutionary rhetoric aside, journalists, editors and shareholders want cash first, a republic second.

We could put the language tawdriness aside and just say: God save the Queen! That is easy and simple and cannot be confused with other languages. And it is in a language that even journalists of The Sunday Age should master.

Read More

The Windsor Hotel, Melbourne

In the 1880s, the top end of Collins and Spring streets formed an elegant and fashionable residential part of Melbourne.

It does not happen very often that I agree with Guy Rundle, but in his latest opinion piece in The Sunday Age he hit the right tone: “… Melbourne is still recognisably a historic city, with layers and textures, laneways and lifeways that give it a global brand, and a source of future value. It does not reside in any one building, but in the mix.” He is worried about the latest plans to demolish Lonsdale House, “one of the city’s best remaining 1930’s art deco buildings” and plans of a “makeover” of the Windsor Hotel that would ruin the whole ensemble opposite Parliament House.

Present view of The Windsor Hotel.

The plans that were published last week include a 25-storey glass tower for additional guest and meeting rooms plus health and leisure facilities. The Windsor tower would be 92 metres high, despite a height control of 23 metres under the existing planning overlay for the area. A new corner building will replace the 1960s north wing addition. This corner building is certainly not a beauty, but by far better than the proposed concrete glass box (see photos) described by one commentator as "a block of swiss cheese".

The existing corner building was erected in the 1960s.

The planned 25-storey glass tower would be 92 metres high with the proposed "block of swiss cheese" concrete and glass box to the right of The Windsor Hotel.

Architect Bill Corker, of Denton Corker Marshall, represents the company that is responsible for the Melbourne Museum (... complete with its own ski jump in yellow) and the Westin and Adelphi hotels.

The Westin Hotel in particular reveals that Denton Corker Marshall have no history of sympathetic development, blocking (very controversially) the vista between the Town Hall and St Paul's Cathederal.

The developers are confident their plans will be approved and have been discussing the project with Planning Minister Justin Madden’s department since November. Bill Corker said department officials had shown good body language in meetings and he had a good “vibe” about its success. Corker said the height of the tower was irrelevant in light of its good design.

It does not come as a surprise that architect guru Norman Day defended the planned monstrosity in an Age article. He threatened: “Architects Denton Corker Marshall’s plans for the Windsor provide a measure of the way the hotel should develop, but they got further, suggesting a prototype for developing any part of Melbourne where significant heritage issues apply.” Isn't is scary to think this might be the prototype for Melbourne's future?

The original Windsor building could be “recovered, re-instated to its original role as a major piece of urban stage scenery” (Norman Day), but there is less and less left of the original Melbourne flair. The new glass boxes may be to the united architects guild’s delight, but ordinary Melburnians or tourists will hardly rejoice of what is to be seen. Melbourne’s distinctive look disappears and is replaced by what planners all over the world approve. The new buildings will neither add something to the city’s appeal not will the stand for very long. The demolition men will be delighted to knock them down in a couple of decades.

We are in urgent need of the greatest critic of modern architecture, Australia’s future King. Prince Charles told Royal Institute of British Architects as recently as on 12th May 2009: "Few people dare to speak out ... for the very good reason that if they do they find themselves abused and insulted, accused of being old-fashioned, out of touch, reactionary, anti-progress, even anti-science - as if it was some kind of unholy blasphemy to question the state of our surroundings, of our natural environment, our food security, our climate and our own human identity and meaning. Little wonder, then, that most people shy away from pointing out that the Emperor isn't actually wearing very many clothes any more."

I wonder what Guy Rundle would make of an ally like Prince Charles. At least the marxist could not claim that the Prince of Wales of being a non-resident and therefore having no right to speak up. After all according to The Age, "Guy Rundle is an Australian writer living in England.” He may be close to Prince Charles in more than one way.

The proposed changes are just ugly and would bring no improvement to the city. These plans, especially the glass box next to the Windsor, are totally unacceptable. We should call in the Prince of Wales as the White Knight who rescues Melbourne City from the devastating grip of the united front of politicians, planners and architects.

Read More

How to create a Scoop

When Evelyn Waugh published his novel “Scoop” in 1938 he described brilliantly how the media at that time made up a story out of nothing.

His sketching is still in practice and The Age follows his description to the letter.

First: On 2nd April Paul Austin, The Age’s state political editor, reports on a speech the Governor of Victoria, David de Kretser, gave to Rotary leaders in Melbourne in February [!]. In it the Governor more or less urged Victorians to get greener. He urged Victorians to build smaller homes, stop drinking bottled water and wear more clothes in winter to reduce energy consumption and help save the planet. Hardly a call to start a revolution.

In the same issue of The Age, the same Paul Austin asked on the opinion page: “Has Victoria's Governor overstepped office's bounds?” And he gives the answer in the first line of his article: “David de Kretser's forthright views risk politicising his role.”

And pretending he was really worried about the office of the Victorian Governor, Paul Austin concludes: “Many Victorians will applaud these views. Others will not. But where should a governor draw the line? Many people who embrace de Kretser's views on climate change would be horrified if the next governor were to argue, say, in favour of capital punishment or against abortion. Victoria has an activist Governor. The question is, is that what we want?“

Second: On 3rd April it was again Paul Austin who talked to a Liberal opponent of David de Kretser’s February statement, in Governor should 'butt out of politics': “Western suburbs MP Bernie Finn said Professor de Kretser was damaging the office of governor and the standing of the constitutional monarchy by putting his views on contentious issues such as citizenship and global warming.”

And surprise, surprise, in the same issue of The Age an unnamed editorialist (again the indefatigable Paul Austin?) came to the rescue of the Governor’s freedom of speech: “The Governor has the right to speak his mind”: “Other state governors and governors-general — for example, the late Davis McCaughey and Sir William Deane — spoke out on matters of conscience to the greater benefit of society. There was little reason their vice-regal roles should have prevented them from doing so.”

Today part three of the play: "Better for Queen's representatives to walk the talk". Another editorial, this time in The Sunday Age on the vice regal role of the Governor. It summarises the previous articles and editorials, but does not add anything new to the discussion, except for the final chapters.

Here The Sunday Age can draw the conclusion that it was obviously heading for, being a Fairfax publication: “There is little evidence the Governor or Governor-General are divisive figures. What they might be instead are transitional figureheads, providing an example of how the president of a republic might act, were such a person to be appointed.”

After all this week’s efforts The (Sunday) Age finally comes to the climax: “Last week both [Governor-General Quentin] Bryce and Prime Minister Rudd said they believed an Australian republic was inevitable but not imminent.”

But despite all the Fairfax media’s and many politicians’ efforts the editorialist must concede: “… it is not surprising that the republic is on the backburner. Yet for the first time in Australian history, leaders of the Government and the Opposition are republicans, an interesting development that has made little impression on the public mind.”

All the efforts vanish in vain: They made little impression on the public mind. The mini scoop fabricated by The Age collapsed – once again.

But that will not prevent The Age to try a re-start.

Read More

When a republican tries to come to the rescue of another republican

After Guy Rundle used last week's Sunday Age to spread gossip and wishful thinking concerning “a” Australian republic, this Sunday’s edition published a letter to the editor written by Barry Everingham – according to The Age "a Melbourne commentator and a republican".

While it is always heart warming to see that the good old-fashioned solidarity still works for republicans, what Barry Everingham wrote, is simply wrong.

Here is his letter and I put my comments in brackets:

"GUY Rundle hit the nail on the head — the yawning indifference to the royals both here and in England is an indication that things are moving, slowly but surely. [When I find “yawning indifference", then it is one for “a” republic, as John Warhurst, himself a leading Australian republican, admitted.]

"A few weeks ago, we got a lesson from Princess Anne, no less, as to how royal visits, if they do occur [they only occur, when the Australian government sends out an invitation, something our arch-republican politicians very rarely do, but that is not the fault of our Royal Family, as Barry Everingham must know], need to be conducted.

"Representing her mum, our head of state — who already has eight representatives here, but that's a story for another day [may we remind Mr. Everingham that some of Her Majesty’s representatives in Australia are actually not following their Oath of Allegiance and work against the symbol they should well and truly represent?] — Anne flew in, went to Government House, freshened up, showed up at the Day of Mourning service, made a great speech [at least, he admits that it was “a great speech”], mingled with the volunteers and firefighters and then took off to the ravaged areas and, throwing protocol to the wind, gave succour to the suffering and next day was on a plane home. [So what? Did not the Australian Governor-General and the Australian Prime Minister fly in as well? None of them stayed even a whole day and they did not take up residence in a tent or caravan in Marysville.]

"The days of waving kids and blue-rinsed grannies getting all excited when an ethnic German foreigner pops in [that racist remark is unworthy for any Melbourne commentator and even for a republican. Should we follow Barry Everingham’s definition for a family that settled in Britain in 1714 still to be considered “an ethnic German foreign”, then less than one percent of the people of Australia could be considered anything else then “foreign ethnics”. A detailed refusal of this outrageous remark can be found here] are thankfully over for ever [how does he know? Her Majesty’s last visit does not prove his wishful think being more than just that: Republican wishful thinking.]

"Even the most rabid monarchists would admit royal tours today just don't take place. [Yes, but because the pollies don’t like the fact that the attention of the public turns away from them towards the Royal Family, therefore they do not send out invitations.] The Poms themselves aren't too enamoured by the shenanigans of the younger royals either. [How does he know? Did the most reliable source for royal news, Guy Rundle, tell him that? To how many British did he speak or is he relying on the Murdoch media, which very often appear to be the main source for Everingham's articles.]

"Rundle didn't find any interest in the London unveiling of the Queen Mum's statue and here we couldn't have cared less. [I could not find any proof for Guy Rundle’s statement. However, I saw photos of the unveiling of the Queen Mother’s statue. One, which is published here, shows the Earl and the Countess of Wessex . Take a look at the media mob in the background. Photographers galore, I’d say. The unveiling was reported all over the world - excluding Australia, I might add, but we know the reason why - and when I set a link to the German political magazine Focus, then despite knowing how Barry Everingham could find this to be a justification for his above mentioned racist remark.] "It is a case of bring on the republic as soon as possible." [The conclusion is complete nonsense and even Barry Everingham himself cannot wish Australia becoming a politicians’ republic. What else would this Melbourne commentator and republican write on, if not on our Royal Family? Or have you read anything else from him?]

[Her Majesty obviously enjoyed the unveiling of a statue commemorating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, to repeat her official title, since Guy Rundle keeps insisting, that she was called Queen Mary, something even Barry Everingham could not support. There is hope, after all, that the truth may prevail.]

Read More