Survey: Queenslanders love the Australian Monarchy

The Queensland Times chose bizarre headline so report on a positive event: Survey shock: Ipswich loves the Royals

 "Ipswich voters are among the country's most enthusiastic supporters of Australia retaining its ties with the monarchy and not becoming a republic.

"And they are just as passionate about Australia investing more money on defence, and getting tougher on temporary foreign workers and restricting the number of 457 visas issued.

"Those attitudes became clear when the ABC published results of its Vote Compass survey, which measures the responses of 900,000 Australians to a number of propositions.

"The report showcases the electorates where voters are 'most in agreement' and 'least in agreement' with the propositions put forward in the Vote Compass survey.

"Voters in the electorate of Blair ranked ninth in the country in their support for the monarchy.

"Of the 10 electorates that stood most firmly behind the monarchy, nine were Queensland seats - including Wright, which also covers parts of Ipswich.

"Federal LNP candidate Teresa Harding said she supported Australia's form of government and saw no reason it change it.

"But Labor MP for Blair Shayne Neumann said he thought it was time Australia had its own head of state and believed the change was inevitable."

The survey result reflects Queensland's loyalty to the Crown. In the 1999 referendum 62.56 percent of the Queenslanders said No to a politicians republic. They rejected the model, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the republicans at the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

Australian Referendum on the question: Do You Approve of the Establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with the Queen and Governor-General being Replaced by a President Appointed by a Two-Thirds Majority of the Members of the Commonwealth Parliament, 6th November 1999

Read More

Aussie republicans claim not to be afraid of Tony Abbott

If it weren’t for their adherence to an obscure ideology, one could feel sorry for the Australian republicans.
It was only on 26^th July 2013 that David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) told AAP (published in The Australian):

 “... when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest."

Morris said: "It's very depressing."

A month later he gave another interview to AAP published by Ninesmn on 26th August, Abbott 'won't set backrepublican cause' , this time to claim:

“The head of Australia's republican movement says the cause would not be hurt by Tony Abbott, a monarchist, becoming prime minister.

“If the polls are right, a man who once headed Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy is on track to become the next prime minister.

“But Australian Republican Movement national director David Morris says Mr Abbott's potential elevation to the top job would be unlikely to set back the cause of constitutional change."

By this claim Mr Morris contradicts the July article, where The Australian published these figures:

“In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

“But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.”

In January 2013 The Age quoted Mr Morris with these remarks:

"The Australian Republican Movement's national director, David Morris, said republicanism had been off the agenda since the referendum because of a ''complete lack of political leadership''.

"Mr Morris said the movement was launching a new campaign, with the slogan ''Our identity: who do we want to be?'' and would focus on Australians ''growing up'' and gaining their independence."

Did anybody take notice of the ARM’s identity campaign? It left no impact here. The ARM launched the campaign in October 2012 in Hobart and went public with an ARM sponsored opinion poll that hardly showed their strength. The Age reported under the headline Republic? Young want to keep it in the (royal) family:

"They were the hope of the republican side - confident young Australians with weak emotional ties to Britain increasingly taking over from ageing monarchists and putting the next referendum on the issue beyond doubt. It hasn't quite worked out that way.

"Research commissioned by the Australian Republican Movement shows that 45 per cent of Australians under 30 want a republic - fewer than any other age group apart from those 70 or over. Strongest support, at 54 per cent, is among baby boomers, particularly men.

"Moreover, young people are much more positive towards the Queen. As one young participant in a focus group put it, she is ''like a mother figure''. If Australia became a republic, ''we'd feel as though we'd lost a family'', said another.

"Nevertheless, he concedes that the research is sobering. Or, in the words of UMR Research, which did the polling, ''the Australian Republican Movement's task is massive''.

The research shows that while 48 per cent of voters overall favour a republic, only 18 per cent are strong supporters. The same proportion rate the issue as very important, but they are more likely to be monarchists than republicans. As UMR put it, ''As passion grows, republican support declines.''

It is more likely, that David Flint’s remarks on Tony Abbott are closer to reality and the improbability of any republican progress under a possible Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He wrote:

"On Wednesday afternoon, instead of prepping for the debate, writes Mark Baker in The Age 24 August, 2013 (Tony) Abbott took himself to the northern outskirts of Brisbane to mingle with members of the Pine Rivers Memorial Bowls Club. He thoughtfully brought a framed portrait of the Queen to replace the one that went missing during renovations a couple of years ago.

''The monarch is a great symbol of unity. The Crown has served us well,'' said Tony Abbott, as the bowlers voted with applause."

But an election is only finished, when the last votes are counted. And referenda are not won by the assertion of either side, that they have a majority only because one of their numerous self-organised opinion polls claim they'd had a majority.

Read More

Britain and Australia reject republicanism

Three quarters of people asked in a recent opinion poll believe that the newborn Prince George of Cambridge will one day accede to the throne to which he is third in line, the ComRes survey for The Sunday Telegraph found.

Just 9 per cent of those questioned think that he will not become king because Britain will have become a republic - whereas a poll in 2011 found that a quarter of people expected a republic to emerge within 50 years.

Even among 18 to 24-year-olds, the age group most likely to hold republican views, today’s poll shows a solid 69 per cent believe that Prince George will one day become king.

The poll suggests that the majority of the country sees no benefit in republicanism, with some two thirds of those polled (66 per cent) thinking that Britain is better off as a monarchy.

Only 17 per cent wanted a republic instead.

As a coincidence Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian published an article two days before the UK poll became public stating that Modern Monarchy depresses republicans.

[Australian Republican Movement (ARM) national director David Morris], "the man charged with leading the push for Australia to become a republic admits he's 'very depressed'.

"The ARM national director insists most people want Australia to become a republic when the current Queen's reign ends.

"In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

"But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.

"'This week the media has taken a lot more interest in talking about Australian nationhood at a time of a UK event and yet when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest,' Morris says.

"'It's very depressing.'"

Even in The Age's editorial Hooray! A new Royal. May he never be our king despite its vitriolic tone, depression shines through:

"Here, republican sentiment has largely been dormant since the 1999 referendum, absent a convincing champion to drive the quest anew. But the arguments for Australia to sever ties to the monarchy have only become more compelling as Asia has boomed."

Why the Asian economic boom should have anything to day with Australia's form of state is The Age's secret. As an independent nation Australia said No in a fair and free referendum in 1999, something most Asian nation never experienced. With its rejection of republicanism Australia could become a model for the emerging countries in Asia.

Read More

Forgetful republicans

Coat of arms of King Alphonso XIII

It was a nostalgic event that happened in Madrid's streets last Sunday. 14th April marked the 82nd anniversary of His Majesty King Alphonso XIII's departure from Spain. He went into exile and died in Rome ten years later. Some people cannot get over the past and they shed some tears for the proclamation of the 2nd Spanish republic on 14th April 1931.

While the media sometimes claimed Spanish anti-monarchy rally attracts thousands, a friend of the Radical Royalist, who actually watched the Sunday afternoon stroll, spoke of 300 participants.


A nostalgic group gathered for a Sunday afternoon stroll.

Associated Press quoted Veronica Ruiz, a member of the communist Izquierda Unida (IU): "Nobody elected the king. We want a referendum. It would be the fair and democratic way to find out what the people want."

The indoctrination of the Spanish Communists had full success with her. Her brainwashing led to amnesia, because the Spanish Constitution was unanimously approved by Parliament and voted by 87.8 % of the citizens in a referendum held on 6th December 1978, which provides in article 1 for a Parliamentary Monarchy of the classical liberal European style. On the other hand the 2nd republic, for which the nostalgics marched on Sunday, did not have the overall approval of the Spanish people. They were never asked in a referendum, if they'd prefer a Monarchy or a republic.

Veronica Ruiz and the Izquierda Unida (IU) are certainly aware of the fact, that hardly any republic in Europe was established by the will of the people. Hardly ever was a referendum held that led to the abolition of the Monarchy, neither in Germany, nor in Austria or in Russia, and of course also not in neighbouring Portugal.

The rather dodgy referenda in Italy and Greece, where republicans triumphed over the Monarchist cause, are no show cases of democracy.

Read More

Nicola Roxon quits - The Queen carries on

This morning Nicola Roxon resigned from Cabinet as Attorney-General and will not contest her seat in the election on 14th September. If she is known for something, then it is certainly for her fierce republicanism.

In 2006 she suggested, Queen's Birthday holiday should be replaced by something more to her liking.

"As a committed republican, I find it hard to justify the time off for the Queen's Birthday. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the republican cause can survive if the cost is one less long weekend.

"Perhaps Tax Return Day? Maybe we can make the Australian "Christmas in July" official?

"Or why not Socceroos' Day?

"I am only half-joking."

Australians for Constitutional Monarchists' National Convenor, David Flint, cites another quote of Nicola Roxon:

"We reported in this column on 13 March, 2006 the brutal words of the Hon. Nicola Roxon, the federal shadow attorney general in Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition: 'There are no new monarchists being born,' she said, only months after swearing or affirming her allegiance to the Sovereign. 'If we bide our time they will all die off…'"

Nothing could be more wrong. While she resigned from her job "to spend more time with my daughter", Her Majesty has been Queen of Australia for 61 years and shows no sign of retiring.

Read More

The world rejoices at news of Royal baby

The news that TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting a baby was big news throughout the Commonwealth.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the news "is going to bring joy to many around the world" and wished the Duchess a swift recovery from the morning sickness that triggered official confirmation of the royal pregnancy.

"Clearly it is a time of joy and it can also be a time of challenge," Ms Gillard told reporters. "I'm sure many will be thinking of Kate when she deals with morning sickness and is in hospital. But from the Australian people to Prince William and Kate, delightful news and our congratulations."

The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition, Tony Abbott tweeted: "A royal baby is on the way! Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."

New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key said the news was "fabulous" for the young couple and would make the Queen of New Zealand and Prince Philip extremely pleased. "It is an important day in any young couple's life when a baby is expected and I know that Catherine and William will be as nervous and excited as anyone," he said in a statement.

"We wish them both the very best and hope Catherine's stay in hospital is a short one. On behalf of the people of New Zealand, I congratulate them both."

Meanwhile Australian republicans found back to their usual hatred and used The Age to call for the return of a mass murderer:

LET the bowing, boot licking and forelock tugging begin. Proud, independent nation - don't make me laugh. Bring back Cromwell.

Richard Morris, Frankston South

On the other hand Murdoch's Melbourne tabloid newspaper Herald Sun admitted:

Republican sentiment in Australia waned after the referendum in 1999 that saw Australians decide to retain the monarchy.

The popularity of the monarchy is likely to continue with Prince William to succeed Prince Charles.

A son or daughter to Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge will take the monarchy safely towards the end of this century, although not necessarily in Australia.

Australian Monarchists will make sure that the last half sentence will remain Murdoch's wishful thinking.

Read More

Romanian president finally impeached

Romanians have difficulties to decide whom they most detest – their president, their prime minister, or simply the entire political caste (they are not alone in that!). Hundreds of demonstrators have been gathering in cities across the country.

Some of them carry placards condemning Prime Minister Victor Ponta, while others slam his arch-rival, president Traian Basescu, who faces impeachment proceedings in the national parliament.

A third group would simply like to be rid of both.

On 6th July the country’s parliament voted to impeach president Traian Basecu. In a joint sitting of both houses of parliament 256 out of 432 MPs and senators voted in favour of removing Basescu from office 217 would have been sufficient to tell him to leave. For the vote to take effect the Romanian people have a final say. Within 30 days a referendum must be held. The most likely date for the referendum is 29th July.

Prime Minister Ponta’s coalition government took office only in May, fired the speakers of both houses of parliament and the ombudsman this week and threatened to sack judges of the Constitutional Court as well.

The German press agency DPA reported from Bucharest:

"During Basuscu’s eight years in office, he has repeatedly imposed his will on the formation of governments, paying little heed to the balance of political forces in parliament.

"He has made full use of his constitutional power to propose a candidate for prime minister, forcing through coalitions between the PDL and smaller parties to head off the PSD and PNL, which enjoyed a small relative majority.

"Ponta came to power at the end of April, after PDL members deserted their party in droves to join the opposition, bringing down the government through a vote of no confidence.

"The “deserters” were seen to have abandoned their party due to a loss of popularity. The PDL had pushed through austerity measures imposed by the IMF and European Union, cutting civil service salaries by 25%, freezing pensions and increasing value-added tax by five points to 24%.

"As a result, the PDL saw its share of the vote sink to a low of 15% in local elections at the beginning of June, while the PSD and PNL took almost 50%.

"Ponta could have waited for parliamentary elections scheduled for the autumn, confident that this trend would hold and that his alliance would secure victory, observers have mused.

"His decision, instead, to attempt to topple Basescu by democratically dubious means is thought to have two reasons.

"Firstly, he may be fearful of the judiciary, which he considers to be controlled by Basescu. Ponta’s political mentor, Adrian Nastase, prime minister in 2000-2004, is in jail for his role in a political funding scandal.

"And secondly, Ponta could be out for vengeance, as he believes Basescu to be behind the plagiarism allegations that have tarnished him. Ponta is said to have copied 85 pages of his 400-page dissertation without having cited the sources as required."

No referendum on the form of state
Unfortunately the proposed referendum will not be on the form of state, but only of the office holder. Basescu is certainly one of the worst presidents in Europe, but Romania’s problems lie deeper. Only in January 2012 the Romanian media reported: Wave of sympathy for King Mihai.

“According to an IMAS poll published last week by ‘Adevarul’ daily, the level of confidence in King Mihai stood at 25.7 per cent in December, being higher than that of president Traian Basescu (12.9 per cent) and in Premier Emil Boc (9.7 per cent) taken together.”

Traian Basescu is an old adversary of King Michael and certainly dislikes the King’s popularity. In October 2011, when the Romanian parliament celebrated the 90th birthday of King Michael, Traian Basescu boycotted the event, while most MPs cheered the monarch’s speech (according to International Business Times.)

The king addressed parliament in Bucharest for the first time in more than 60 years and he asked parliamentarians to upgrade democracy in the country and restore the dignity of the people.

Referring to the fall in 1989 of the Communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, the king said: "The last 20 years have brought democracy, freedom and a beginning of prosperity. The time has come after 20 years to... break for good with the bad habits of the past" [such as] "demagogy, selfishness and attempts to cling to power. It is within our power to make this country prosperous and worthy of admiration".”

He added: "We cannot have a future without respecting the past. The royal crown is not a symbol of the past but a unique representation of our independence, sovereignty and unity.”

Before the festive event Basescu had launched a stinging attack on King Michael, accusing him of being responsible for the Holocaust in Romania, and calling him "a Russian lackey."

In an interview Basescu said as Michael was head of state during the pro-fascist regime of dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu — prime minister from 1940 to 1944, during World War II — he should also be considered responsible for the death of some 280,000 Jews and 11,000 Gypsies.

In 1944, when Romania was allied with Germany, Michael staged a coup against Antonescu, and Romania switched sides to the Allies.

Basescu called Michael "a Russian lackey" in the interview, adding that his abdication — forced by Soviet-backed Communists on 30th December 1947 — was "an act of treason."

In November 1947, with the communists gaining a hold over Romania and the region King Michael surprised the government by returning to Bucharest after attending the royal wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in London. A month later the Soviet-backed communist government told him if he did not sign his abdication, 1,000 Romanians would be executed. He abdicated on 30th December 1947 and began a life of exile in Britain and Switzerland. His Romanian citizenship was restored in 1997.

Basescu, who insulted King Michael, was himself a member of the notorious secret agency Securitate, but claimed “his links with the former Securitate were minimal”
And Queen Helena, The Queen Mother, was subsequently honored by the Yad Vashem Museum in Israel for rescuing Romanian Jews.

The crisis in Romania could signify the need for an overall change of the political structure in Romania. Famous actor Ion Caramitru believes that King Michael of Romania was the only personality capable of restoring morality in the country and speaks about the toxicity of “turncoat communists” and of the former secret police officers who got into business. In an interview with ‘Adevarul,’ published in a translation of in the Bucharest Herald) the manager of the Bucharest National Theatre says he did not abandon his attitude of social militant, though he stays away from politics today. Caramitru still believes in the political principles of Christian Democracy to restore the monarchy and increase the respect for religion.

“I am sad! For the last 20 years, King Michael I has been in the country… The monarchy could have become perfectly stable during all these years and we could have banished communism forever, by annulling the abdication of 1947, when the King was rudely forced to leave the country. The return to monarchy would have put an end to this fight over the first position in the state, for a president who has discretionary powers. This semi-absolute power could divert the state to other ends, while monarchy secures the first position in the states only in a symbolic manner… Monarchy was the only principle capable of restoring morality in the country. Without it, what did we do? We have the same communists, now turncoats, and the former secret police officers who got into business and obtained revolutionist’s certificates. The infamous people controlling us in the past are doing the same today. The country is dying and everything was stolen,” Ion Caramitru said.

Ion Caramitru: Ce-am facut fara monarhie? Tara e pe dric si e furata pana la Dumnezeu!

Read More

Australian Girl Guides drop God and The Queen

The Australian Monarchist League sent out this media release:

GIRL GUIDES – NOW CRINGING TOWARDS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Girl Guides Australia is wrong if it thinks it will attract more members by removing any reference to The Queen and to God.

Loyalty and obedience, has always been a fundamental part of Guiding but this is also to be replaced with something like ‘choices for a better world’.

And all this to cater to those children – or more probably their parents – who have republican sympathies and/or who are irreligious.

However, it seems to be an oxymoron, that this misguided organisation removes mention of The Queen at a time of her great popularity and when polls are showing an increasing majority of Australians wanting to remain a constitutional monarchy. Moreover, they are retaining the name of the Guide's highest honour, ‘The Queen's Guide’ and also keeping as their Patron, the Governor-General, whom they seem to forget is The Queen’s representative!

Pandering to small minorities, however influential, has cost our Federal government almost total popularity. If the Girl Guides think they will achieve greater numbers by removing the very essence of what they are, then I feel they are sadly mistaken.

At one time parents would send their daughters to the Guides to encourage self discipline and leadership. Now it seems all they will get is a cringing towards political correctness.

Philip Benwell
National Chair
0419 417 097

Opinion polls on the internet shows, that the Girl Guides' move is not welcome:

Voting is open until next Monday, go here to click for the right answer.

The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy published a protest nore as well. See here.

Read More

The Queen of Australia represents multiculturalism

Last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the first data from the 2011 Census of Population and Housing. After The Age published interpreting articles, one letter writer (mis-)used the blank figures for an attack on the Queen of Australia.

THE census figures demonstrate how totally inappropriate is our head of state. In a modern democracy the head of state should represent the entire population. The Queen as head of the Church of England represents the 17 per cent of the population who are Anglican. Catholics represent 25 per cent of the population. Clearly the Pope would be a more appropriate foreign head of state than the Queen.
Brian Sanaghan, West Preston

Brian is a well-known writer of pro-republican letters to the editors of many Australian newspapers, but instead of assuming that Her Majesty is unfit to be Australia’s head of state, because she is an Anglican and head of the Church of England, he should consider her the most suitable person to represent multiculturalism.

Not only is she married to a husband of Greek origin, she had a mother who was Scottish, a grandmother who was of Württemberg descent and a great-grandmother from Denmark, her husband’s grandmother was Russian. And to top it all: The most interesting genealogical issue of the descent of Her Majesty the Queen is that among her forefathers was the Prophet Mohammed.

The Queen is descended from the marriage of Edmund of Langley, the fifth son of King Edward III, to Isabel of Castile in 1372. Isabel was the daughter of Pedro the Cruel; Pedro the Cruel was descended from the Prophet. The Queen's descent from Edmund of Langley is straightforward. It runs through Edward IV, Edmund's great grandson, to King Edward IV's great grand-daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, down through King James I to the Hanoverian line, and so on to the House of Windsor.

She even has managed to join Martin McGuinness, the leading republican, who was once an IRA commander, in a handshake representing peace for Ireland.

Here's another press release from the ABS:

Read More

Happy Queen's Birthday Holiday

Like in all previous years The Age has printed its usual anti-monarchist editorial for Queen’s Birthday holiday. “As The Age has asked before, why do we continue to mark an occasion that is an unnecessary link to Australia's colonial past?” Yes, they have asked the question many times, but they keep refusing to acknowledge the answer: Because the Australians – in their overall majority – want the Monarchy.

Interestingly enough the result of the most recent opinion poll on this question, published two days ago, never appeared in The Age, neither in the printed version nor online:

According to the Roy Morgan Research “an increased majority of Australians (58%, up 6% - the highest since July 1988) believe Australia should remain a Monarchy while a decreasing number of Australians 35% (down 2% since October 2011) believe Australia should become a republic with an elected president and 7% (down 4%) are undecided — according to a special Morgan Poll of Australians taken over two nights (June 5/6, 2012).

"Now more Australians (48%, up 5% since October 2011) also support Australia remaining as a Monarchy if Prince Charles were to be crowned King than not with 43% (down 5%) of Australians wanting a Republic with an elected President, and 9% of Australians can’t say.

"But, if Prince William were to be crowned King, a clear majority of 58%, (up 5% since October 2011) would want to continue with the Monarchy while only 34% (down 5%) of Australians would want a republic with an elected president and 8% (unchanged) of Australians can’t say.

"Analysis by voting intention shows more ALP supporters (48%) want a Republic with an elected President compared to 47% who would prefer to continue with the Monarchy. However L-NP supporters clearly favour continuing with the Monarchy (72%) and only 23% want a republic with an elected president."

The Age should start asking questions about why this has occurred instead of pushing their old and rather tired editorial policy on a disinterested Australian people. The circulation culd only benefit.

Read More

"Charles will be our next head of state"

It seems that Shaun Carney, an associate editor of The Age, went too far yesterday. He had admitted:

“Charles will be our next head of state. And, whether I live to see it or not, I'm convinced that Charles' first-born, William, will be Australia's head of state after that.”

Today The Age’s editorial returned to the familiar republican modus vivendi:

“People who have a strong and principled attachment to the institution of monarchy may be relatively few in this country, but there are undoubtedly many who sincerely profess admiration and affection for the monarch. That fact alone may keep the republic at bay for the remainder of her reign.”

And the author of the editorial expressed equally this hope:

“The mystique of monarchy may yet prove to be merely the mystique of a monarch, and popular support for an Australian republic, which has waned in recent years, may revive. For the present, however, an observation of Liberal frontbencher and former republican leader Malcolm Turnbull probably captures the popular mood most accurately: Australia has more Elizabethans than monarchists.”

How much better did Shaun Carney capture the situation for the Australian Monarchy - at present and in the foreseeable future:

“ ...for Australians, the diamond jubilee festivities were our celebration too, because the Queen is our head of state.”

“ Charles seems a decent person who has played his part in raising two fine young men in William and Harry. None of them asked to be born into the British royal family, which, because Britain colonised this continent in the 18th century, is our royal family.

“And we had our chance to go in a different direction, but, by a national vote of 55-45 per cent, chose not to. As recently as the late 1990s, a solid majority of Australians were telling pollsters that they wanted Australia to become a republic, to cut the formal constitutional ties with Britain and to have a full-time Australian head of state. Then the republicans started squabbling about what sort of republic we should have, which cruelled the chance of success at the 1999 referendum, and the opportunity to end Australia's days as a constitutional monarchy was lost.

“Originally, the republicans - especially the direct-election advocates who had supported a ''no'' vote at the referendum - argued that the country would be able to return to the question a few years down the track. It soon became apparent that this would not happen. Then they looked to the period after the Queen's passing as the appropriate time for the move to a republic, convincing themselves that Prince Charles as king would be a turn-off to monarchists - a forlorn piece of wishful thinking.

“In the meantime, public attitudes in Australia have changed. Republican sentiment has been in steady retreat. Last year, the Queen attracted enormous numbers during her Australian visit. The gushing from Australians behind the barricades in Melbourne about the Queen's magnificence equalled the encomiums from their London counterparts this week.

“The republican cause in Australia will always have adherents, but republicanism's moment has passed. Perhaps it will return, but not for a long time.”

To publish a contradicting opinion piece with the all too familiar republican statements one day after Shaun Carney’s admission that the republican crusade has failed to capture the Australians is an effort to re-establish the newspaper’s credentials among the Australian republican circles. Alarming figures haunt the Melbourne branch of Fairfax media. The Age’s sales dropped 13.4 per cent on a weekday in the March 2012 quarter and the Saturday Age lost 12.4 per cent. Instead of transferring 66 editorial production jobs to New Zealand – which lead to a journalist strike of 36 hours in Melbourne – Fairfax should re-examine their editorial policy.

Everybody who follows the RadicalRoyalist knows, that Rupert Murdoch has no friend in this blogger, but it must be said that while The Age lost readers in double digits, Murdoch’s Melbourne tabloid HeraldSun newspaper fell only 3 per cent in March 2012.

Murdoch knows, what people want to spent money on. Last Saturday the HeraldSun offered a 52-page souvenir magazine that was sold with the newspaper on 2nd June, the day before the beginning of the big Diamond Jubilee celebrations. It is a lovely and well-edited magazine with references to the Queen of Australia and the Queen of Victoria – terms you will never find printed in The Age. How did The Age report on the Diamond Jubilee celebrations? They re-printed articles from The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. Nothing extraordinary, but perhaps the editor thought not being nasty had been praise enough.

But why should one buy a Melburnian newspaper, when there is so little content that pleases its readers?

Read More

Spanish republicans propagate the re-use of the guillotine

To commemorate the proclamation of the 2nd republic on 14th April 1931, Spanish republicans have launched a campaign to revive their dead cause. The Izquierda Unida issued posters that state "Nuestros recortes serán con guillotina" (“Our cuts will be done with the guillotine”).

The Izquierda Unida, United Left (iu) consists mainly of the former Communist Party (PCE). Originally the Carlist Party was also a founding member of the iu but they parted ways in 1987. In 2012 the iu holds 11 out of 350 seats in the Spanish Parliament and none of 264 seats in the Spanish senate.

Spanish Monarchists counter the republican campaign by using the Communist motto and denouncing it:

NO to terror!

NO to assassination!

NO to dictatorship!

NO to the republic!

Long live the King!

Read More

Rob Hulls resigns from politics - and about time, too

The Deputy Opposition Leader in the Victorian Parliament, Rob Hulls, today announced his resignation after more than 15 years in State Parliament. He served in Her Majesty's Victorian governments as attorney-general and has been in the position of Deputy Opposition Leader and education spokesman since Labor lost power in November 2010.

As fierce republican he did everything to damage the position of the Monarchy in Victoria and beyond. See:

- The Crown vs. The DPP

- Creeping republicanism

- "Rabid Monarchists"

- "The proposition by Mr Hulls is an affront in itself"

His retirement (to a lucrative position on a bank board like other ex-politicians?) is more than welcome news.

Read More

Media watch
Québec, les Québecois and the Canadian Monarchy

Before the Duke and the Duchess of Cambridge arrived in the Dominion of Canada, the media hoped for trouble in the province of Québec by a republican protest wave.

They grounded their hopes on a well-known quack: Amir Khadir, a Québec Solidaire member of the province’s National Assembly had called the newlywed royal couple “parasites.” Mr. Khadir is known as an outspoken politician, whose remarks have put him in the spotlight before.

Québec’s Minister of Foreign Relations and Minister of La Francophonie, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, welcomed their visit, which is already garnering the attention of dozens of international journalists seeking accreditation for the tour. She said the province would cover part of the cost of their tour, although she didn’t specify the exact amount. She called the visit a chance to put the belle province on display.

That incensed Mr. Khadir even more, who compared the parading of the royal couple to a “circus” meant to attract tourist.
The Globe and Mail, 31st May 2011

The visit to Montréal on 2nd July and Québec City on 3rd July went ahead and was a huge success.


The worst reported incident arising during the visit of Prince William and Kate on the weekend was a small group of Québec anti-monarchists, numbering between 30 and 100, unfurling a banner calling them royal parasites.

The protesters were overshadowed by scenes of unbridled enthusiasm for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. In Québec City, the heartland of Québec nationalism, William delivered a speech "tout en francais" that was deemed passable, with an improved accent. The attractive young couple went up to the barricades to shake hands and talk to star-struck Québecers who voiced their approval.
Calgary Herald, 5th July 2011

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge kept calm and carried on as they were met by small but loud groups of Québec sovereigntists expressing their disdain for the Crown over the weekend.

Nearly 100 members of the British media are in Canada to cover the royal couple's first official international visit.

They are part of the almost 1,400 journalists accredited to cover the royal visit.
The Canadian Press, 3rd July 2011

It must be exhausting to continually fight the battle of the Plains of Abraham more than 250 years after its formal conclusion, and utterly demoralizing to keep losing it.

The relative handful of demonstrators who tried to disrupt the Montréal and Québec City segments of the royal tour only succeeded in demonstrating that their anti-monarchist sentiments are even less relevant than the monarchy.

The cost of accommodating Prince William and his wife, Kate, is a pittance compared to the international attention a royal tour commands. Travel industry marketers would kill to get that kind of bang for their buck. So the “parasites” argument doesn’t wash, especially coming from fringe characters in North America’s most notorious welfare state.

Then there’s the character of the royals themselves. I had the privilege of meeting William’s father, Prince Charles, and Charles’ wife, Camilla, during their visit to Montréal in 2009, and their easy-going nature, impeccable manners and good humour under constant scrutiny left an unforgettable impression. These are people who are drilled from early childhood in the art of social politesse, and they embrace their position and responsibilities with unfailing grace, which is more than can be said for self-centered athletes, actors, rock stars and famous-for-being-famous celebrities who behave like petulant children when they feel their ”space” is being invaded. (I’ll never forget a story from a friend of a friend who, as a teenager, was waiting outside the Forum to get a famous visiting hockey player’s autograph, and when the team bus showed up, the player brushed past his biggest fan and growled, “F*** off, kid, I haven’t even had breakfast yet.”
Montréal Gazette, 5th July 2011

Anti-monarchist protesters failed to disrupt the visit of Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate to Québec, which was the most politically sensitive portion of their Canadian royal tour.

A group estimated by local reporters at about 200 people used loudspeakers on Sunday to decry the royal family and call for sovereignty for the French-speaking province, but they were kept far away from the couple in Québec City.
Reuters, 4th July 2011

Gary Sims, a staunch monarchist and amateur historian, said the protesters don’t know their history. “If it wasn’t for the British influence in North America, there would be no French at all,” he said, noting that, had the Americans and not the British triumphed in the War of 1812, French-speakers would likely have been assimilated and Quebec as we know it would not exist.
The Globe and Mail, 3rd July 2011

Sunday morning, Montréal very nationalist daily newspaper Le Journal de Montréal, posted 80% of all its pages reserved to the royal couple (the Montréal visit) in a very positive mode, with nice pictures and details. 20% was reserved for the protests, insisting these people are a minority. This morning, Montréal federalist daily newspaper La Presse report explains how Québecers appreciate the visit in Québec city, with minor references to the protests. Now look at english media outside of Québec and their pathetic focus on how these Québec separatists hate the royal couple. The focus to find and interview some Québeckers who dislike the monarchy, etc.... Let me be clear: their is no enthusiasm for the royal family in Québec, and there will never be. But the immense majority of people are polite and have nothing against Kate and William. We are simply nor indifferent or nor charmed by this couple. So now read english national media, and you will see that the coverage of the royal visit in Québec has by far focus on these bad people. English media were so happy to see some Québeckers booing them. These media needs daily doses of Québec bashing to keep alive a part of their audience.
Denis_Montreal, 4th July 2011

Read More

The Monarchy is truly well and alive

What's wrong with these O’Briens? Yes, Sarah O'Brien was the evil spirit at Downton Abbey, a TV series that was a huge success in the UK. Mrs O'Brien hated with a passion, but never stopped showing her employer the face of a loyal employee.

She has an equivalent in Australia: Susie O'Brien, who works at Melbourne’s mighty, but nasty tabloid newspaper, the Herald Sun, where she stated something that only republicans take for granted: Monarchy is no longer relevant. This comes as no surprise, since republicans must repeat this sentence ten times in the morning, when by getting up they realize they made no progress.

As a journalist for a Murdoch newspaper the mantra must be mumbled by arriving at the work desk.

Isn’t it a little bit risky to write: “Privilege should not be a birthright, it should be a reward for hard work and sacrifice.“ After all, Susie O’Brien, your employer, Rupert Murdoch, is about to hand down his billions to his children, who had the privilege to be born into the magnate’s family. Only recently an American bank accused Murdoch of nepotism:

New York-based Amalgamated Bank, which owns more than 1 million News Corp shares and manages $US12 billion in funds for institutional investors, alleges Mr Murdoch's proposal to use £415 million ($A673 million) of News Corp cash to buy daughter Elisabeth's TV production company, Shine, breaks the law.

"Murdoch's admitted purpose in entering into the transaction is to bring Elisabeth back to the family business, Amalgamated says in a 46-page claim lodged in a Delaware court.

The investor backlash appears designed to put Mr Murdoch's tenure and plans for family succession squarely into the minds of institutional investors and corporate governance advisers just days after Mr Murdoch's 80th birthday.

It alleges the decision to buy Shine and hand Elisabeth a seat on the News Corp board "on a silver platter" is Mr Murdoch's "latest move in his quest to shore up the News Corp-Murdoch family dynasty".

"Throughout his tenure, Murdoch has treated News Corp like a wholly owned family candy store," Amalgamated says, imposing "rampant nepotism" and allowing senior executives to "embroil News Corp in apparently illegal behaviour". (The Age, 18th March 2011)

The Monarchy is no longer relevant? It certainly rules in the Murdoch empire and the O'Briens of this world would never dare to criticise their masters (in public). There are more similarities between the fictional character of Sarah O'Brien and the real Susie O'Brien than the journalist could love.

Read More

Two sides of one coin: Labor Day and Queen's Birthday holiday

This Monday is a public holiday in Victoria: Labor Day. It commemorates the granting of the eight-hour working day for Victorians. It also recognizes workers’ contributions towards the nation’s economy. 14th March also happens to be Commonwealth Day and the theme that has been agreed by the Queen is ‘Women as Agents of Change’. This theme will be celebrated throughout the Commonwealth during the year, with special events taking place during the week of 14th-20th March.

Reading The Age today gives you no hint of the importance of this day. This newspaper ignores the workers as it ignores the Commonwealth and the Queen on Her official birthday in June. At least the journalists did not have to write abusive editorials and other opinion pieces on workers’ rights today as they usually do against Australian Monarchists and the Australian Monarchy.

In The Age’s editor’s eyes workers aren’t even worth being mentioned, while the Queen’s constitutional role really annoys Fairfax media Ltd.

What should be Fairfax media’s next demand? Scrap the public holiday as The Age routinely suggested for Queen’s Birthday holiday. Wait for the editorial on 13th June 2011. Australians will see a repeat of the 2010 ritual. Scrap Monday's holiday: Republicans: "Workers might be looking forward to their day off on Monday, courtesy of the Queen's Birthday holiday, but republicans want it scrapped."

Already in 2009 the RadicalRoyalist proclaimed: Keep Labor Day! Nothing will change the RadicalRoyalist’s poconviction – keep Labor Day and Queen’s Birthday holiday!

The Princess Royal meets staff of the Western Riverside Waste Authority Materials Recycling Facility at Smuggler’s Way, Wandsworth, London, 10th March 2011.

Read More

Royalist uprising
On 12th March 1793 the population of Saint-Florent-le-Vieil rose against the French republic and the Jacobin terror regime.

Jean-François Michael sings the Royalist battle song Chouans en avant in a powerful modern version:



A history of the War of the Vendée here in French. Wikipedia as vague as usual: Estimates of those killed in the Vendean conflict - on both sides - range between 117,000 and 450,000, out of a population of around 800,000.

A more radical approach, calling the republican response a genocide, put it like this:

What the French Revolution invented, 150 years before Auschwitz, was industrialized murder.

In Vendée, a city that had revolted against the central Revolutionary government, over 100,000 people, including women and children, were murdered, executed in part by grapeshot and by tying them to boats that were sunk in the Loire River. ("No nation," wrote Friedrich Engels in a diatribe against the Czechs, "can tolerate a Vendee in its heart.") A similar, somewhat smaller outrage took place in Lyons, a city that had rebelled and was to be erased for good. By some estimates, 14,000 houses were demolished.

During this sombre extermination drive, two sinister shadows stand out: those of General Turreau and of Carrier - known as "the drowner of Nantes".

Two thousand Vendeans - half of them women - were shot at Angers; 1,500 on the island of Noirmoutier; 1,800 in the quarries of Gigant, near Nantes.

Carrier had 4,000 prisoners drowned in the river Loire.

Still it was not enough. On 19th January 1794, Turreau presented his extermination plan to the Convention: 24 columns of men would be sent to the Vendée with orders to penetrate every corner of the rebellious département and to burn and destroy everything they found. The Vendée was put to fire and sword.

On just one day, 28th February 1794, at Les Lucs sur Boulogne, a column under the command of Cordellier killed 563 people.

But it was not over yet. The exhausted survivors regrouped behind two battle-hardened leaders: Charette and Stofflet. The death-squads were massacred in their turn at Chauché, at Les Clouzeaux and elsewhere.

A Republican column led by Crouzat - who, in the absence of Stofflet, killed 1,500 people in the forest of Vezins on 25th March - was cut down three days later at Les Ouleries.

Turreau's plan had failed. The Vendée was wounded, but with its endless programme of guerrilla warfare was still a threat. The wooded bocage provided a maze of sunken lanes where a single strategically-placed Vendean could easily pick off his opponents and into which Republican troops ventured at their peril. Reprisals, though, were often enacted on civilians. "The incredible Vendée still survives," wrote back the angry Republican commanders to the Convention.

On 13th May 1794 Turreau was relieved of his duties. Needing troops to fight on its frontiers, the Convention pulled out of the Vendée.

A bas la république!

Vive le Roi!

Read More

The Age: This year's republican parrot talk

On Australia Day The Age put up a united front against the Constitution, the Australian flag and first of all against the Australian Monarchy. Actually, everything seems to be a repeat from previous years.

As a commentator remarked: These has-beens say the same thing every Australia Day and quite frankly it is boring. Most Australians don't care enough to change to bother talking about it. Do you just republish the same newspaper every Australia Day so you can have a day off too.

Peter Gebhardt asked for “independence from the regal pantomime in England”.

John Huxley collected quotes from a dozen former Australians of the Year, among them Harold Scruby, who founded Ausflag in 1981, who had said: “We believe the time has come to embrace a flag worthy of our sovereign, independent, mature, egalitarian nation; our own flag."

The most common, very, very common was Larissa Behrendt, professor of law at the University of Technology, Sydney, chairwoman of the Bangarra Dance Theatre and 2011 NSW Australian of the Year, who came up with this all too familiar slogan: “Becoming a republic is inevitable and it's time to rekindle the debate.” You wouldn’t believe the originality.

Worst of all is today's editorial in The Age: "The last national leader who accepted the challenge was Paul Keating, and when he left office, nearly 60 per cent of Australians supported a republic.” The Age might be the only one in Australia regretting Paul Keating has disappeared from the political arena.

In view of the recent opinion polls mentioned below The Age appears like an Australian version of The Pravda with its republican rants, that left no space for a single pro-Monarchist article on Australia Day. Don't they fear the Australians might get an overdose of the same old republican propaganda that was published on other occasions? May this empire of evil speaking collapse soon.

In 2010, 52 per cent favoured the Constitutional Monarchy for Australia rather than “a” republic. The Age on 22nd December 2010: A total of 52 per cent think the nation should remain a monarchy.

And on 28th August 2010:
Australian support for the country becoming a republic is at its lowest level since 1994.

The RadicalRoyalist’s previous responses to The Age’s republicanism on Australia Day reply to all the allegations published today and can be read here from 2007 and here from 2009.

Read More

Republicans catch a cold, while the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is in royal wedding fever

Once again The Age demonstrated its mediocre journalism. On day two after the news of the engagement of Prince William and Katherine Middleton The Age’s Europe correspondent Paola Totaro’s report A match fit for the times was placed on the front page, while yesterday’s Age had the news hidden on page 12 as “World News”. Today’s page 14 was exclusively dedicated to “the Royal Wedding”.

Tony Wright, not the usual royal editor of The Age, wrote:

“Julia Gillard could hardly looked more radiant ...: ‘The world awoke this morning to happy news,’ Ms Gillard beamed to the House of Representatives, delivering the glad tidings of a new betrothal.

"No sooner had Ms. Gillard finished gushing and offering the nation’s best wishes than Tony Abbott was on his feet, declaring himself ‘Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’. “I rise also to congratulate Prince William, our future king and Miss Kate Middleton on their engagement,” he said. ‘Every Australian should rejoice at their happiness.’

”Malcolm Turnbull, once the most prominent republican in the land, peered into the middle distance.

“Mr. Abbott was so swept away that when Speaker Henry Jenkins childed him a little later for interjecting when normal political combat had resumed, he pleaded ‘royal wedding fever’.”

The Age’s editorial “Here’s to William and Kate” had the usual republican rants like: “The Age, which believes in a republican Australia, can also believe in fairytales. Congratulations!”

The printed version contained an opinion piece by Monica Hesse from The Washington Post. Why The Age had to fall back on an American writer remains a mystery. Was an article from the Guardian newspaper not available? What about the usual suspects from the republican Australian journo camp, didn’t they want to spread their well-known hatred of the Australian Monarchy?

It could be asked why The Age did not find a Monarchist columnist who could comment of the good news from Buckingham Palace, but gave space to an article of Klaas Woldring, convenor of Republic Now Association Inc., "Time to breathe life into an archaic constitution". Although he admits that “the republic has been removed from the public policy agenda”, he calls the Australian Constitution “this costly, undemocratic and inflexible document”. And he also states: “A sovereign people can rewrite its Constitution at any time. That is the essence of its sovereignty.” Did he forget that in 1999 the sovereign people of Australia said NO to a republic?

Message from the Governor-General

Your Royal Highness,

on behalf of all Australians, Michael and I send our heartfelt congratulations and best wishes to you and Miss Catherine Middleton upon the announcement of your engagement to marry next year.

Australians were delighted, earlier this year, to have the opportunity to welcome you to Australia. Our time with you in Sydney was memorable and thoroughly enjoyable. [Did the Governor-General forget that HRH was also in Melbourne and country Victoria? RR]

Your genuine fondness for Australia and Australians shone through in all your interactions, and I know that these feelings are very much reciprocated.

I am sure that Australians look forward with anticipation and excitement to hearing of your wedding preparations as they unfold. It is a unifying time of much joy and celebration. And, naturally, we will take immense pleasure in welcoming you both on the occasion of your first visit to Australia together some time in the future.

Your Royal Highness, your announcement has warmed our nation’s heart.

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