Politeness

Sir Gulam Noon was born in Bombay in 1936. Within 40 years of arriving in London he was producing a quarter of a million curries a day for British supermarkets.

In a newspaper interview he mentioned the Queen, whom he had met on several occasions. ”I told her to call me Noon, but she said, ‘No, you have a knighthood, you are Sir Gulam’.”

That’s the politeness of a Monarch.

The politeness of a politician can be seen in this episode, reported by the ABC:
Place: Canberra, the Public hearing of the Inquiry into the Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008
Date: 29th April 2009

SIR DAVID SMITH: I'm not talking about legislation. I am talking about the constitution, Senator.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: We are talking about legislation here, Mr Smith. This is a bill before the Parliament.

SIR DAVID SMITH: Do you have an objection to using my title. Should I call you Bob or Mr Brown?

SENATOR BOB BROWN: You are welcome to.

SIR DAVID SMITH: Okay.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: Very much so.

SIR DAVID SMITH: A little courtesy wouldn't go too far.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well …

SIR DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry. I interrupted your question. I apologise.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: You did, Mr Smith.

No need to mention that in the ABC report, Sir David was not referred to with his title.

Read More

Hear, hear!

The Age succeeded in surprising me today:

"But a republic is not inevitable. It won't happen unless it is kept on the national political agenda, and the major parties — both of which are now led by avowed republicans — should support Senator Brown's bill."

The Age will do everything to keep republicanism alive and soon return to its usual mantra of some inevitability to replace our Australian Monarchy with "a" republic.

Interestingly The Age commented in its editorial yesterday's Finance and Public Administration Committee's hearing of the inquiry into a plebiscite for "an" Australian republic Bill, but it reported nothing of the hearing.

It could have done so like the ABC that picked up odd bits and pieces of various statements, but a good newspaper would have given a full report of the pros and cons that were brought forward.

We Age readers really missed out highlights like this: Sarah Brasch, who represented Women for an Australian republic triumphantly announced that finally 43 percent of Australian women supported "a" republic. 43 percent!! Hardly the overwhelming majority, that is usually claimed by The Age and likeminded republican politicians.

Why did The Age fail - again - to do its job?

Read More

The Age continues the Governor's saga

While nobody knows, where the Governor of Victoria is - the Premier's office did not reply to a question about David de Kretser's official visit "in the Middle East" - Paul Austin continued his useless campaign about the Governor's right "to speak out on contentious issues such as global warming".

Today's Age could report of a bi-partisan support: "Mr Brumby and Mr Baillieu were responding to reports in The Age on recent speeches by Professor de Kretser in which he has issued a call to arms on global warming." According to The Age "Mr Baillieu said Australian society had moved on from the view that vice-regal representatives should stay silent.

Of course, this article followed the rule, that The Age does not publish any article without a sting against the Australian Monarchy. The paper referred to the "representatives of the Queen in Australia". Naturally the correct term is the Queen of Australia.

A lot of propaganda in two letters.

Read More

Carnation Revolution in Portugal 35 years ago

The Carnation Revolution (Portuguese: Revolução dos Cravos), was a military coup against a 40 year old dictatorship, which started on April 25, 1974, in Lisbon, Portugal. It gave all political groups the opportunity to form parties and to participate in the political life of the country. Before the coup the Portuguese Monarchists had been part of the opposition against António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano. My Portuguese friend, Nuno Castelo-Branco , writes on the Carnation Revolution from a Monarchist point of view. Nuno has two blogs, that are worth checking: estadosentido and centenario-republica.

The 25th April 1974 has a special signifiance for the Portuguese history, because it meant a clear rupture with the colonial past. At that time Portugal held overseas territories in the Atlantic - Cape Verde, São Tomé, in Africa - Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozambique -,and in Asia - Macau and Timor -, but Portugal was facing a guerrilla war on several African fronts, this was during the same period as the Vietnam war. Without any support of from formal NATO allies, the Portuguese army managed to contain the thread imposed by movements armed by the USSR and China and financed by countries that had interests in the economic prospects in Angola and Mozambique.

The internal situation of the regime had started to crumble in the post-WWII period, when the influence of communism was evident around the world. Half of Europe was occupied by the Red Army and the decolonization period arrived with the "winds of history".

Portugal had a banishment law for the Braganza family. This law was imposed after the illegal and brutal coup d'État in 1910, but the collapse of the 1st republic in 1926 - due to fraud, incompetence, economic disaster and political repression -, gave the “restaurationists” some hopes to achieve the return of the Monarchy. Unfortunately, the premature death of King Manuel II in 1932 created a new situation and rendered the path for a smooth acceptation of the restoration more difficult. [In 1933 António de Oliveira Salazar came to power. RR]

The visit of Queen Amelia in 1945 surprised the Salazar regime, who could not expect such a popular reception, with thousands of people cheering her everywhere. Amelia embodied in fact the last rememberance of a regime of political tolerance, being the face of the multi-party constitutiobal legalism. Wishing to calm down the internal pressure of the Monarchist members of the Causa Monárquica - the people’s wish was already tested by Amelia's visit -, Salazar finally agreed to abolish the banishment law, precisely in the period that General Franco declared Spain a kingdom "in waiting". All the opposition was waiting what the new situation held for them: The Braganzas returned to Portugal. It was well known that the regime’s own party, the União Nacional, had an extremely strong monarchist section. Salazar knew that the Duke of Braganza was an admirer of the British Monarchy. On this prospect, that the Portuguese Estado Nuevo could be replaced by a Parliamentarian Monarchy Salazar decided to stay on the republican way, seeing in the restoration a threat to his personal power.

The accomplishment of the military service of the (then Crown Prince) Dom Duarte at the front in Angola, left negative impressions on Marcelo Caetano (who had succeded Salazar in 1968), because His Royal Highness tried to organize an opposition list in Angola, to run for the national elections. At this moment the ecologist-liberal group of Monarchists under the direction of Ribeiro Telles, announced the complete rupture with the Caetano regime, who was unable to solve politically the military conflict in the overseas territories. The war was far from lost, but without any logistic assistance by the formal allies, it could be prolonged in the future, creating internal friction and international oposition against Portugal.

The 25th April had as direct consequence the rapid abandonning of the overseas provinces, with a unprecedent chaos everywhere. Due to the clear influence of the communist party, the army retired, and circa one million "colons" (settlers) where forced to flee to Portugal, South Africa, Brazil and even Australia.

The normalization of the internal situation in Portugal, included the country’s entry into the EU, re-establishing of strong ties with the traditional allies, the United Kingdom and the USA. Actually, the economical degradation, the perils due to the massification of the EU, give a very clear rise of the Monarchist movement which is stronger than ever.

Deputies in parliament - in most of the democratic parties, Socialist, Social Democrat, Conservative, Party of the Earth/ecologists -, in the press - some polls give circa 40% to the monarchy in an hypothetic referendum -, and now, in the internet. As a simple curiosity, let me mention a poll of SIC (channel 3 of TV) on the day of the marriage of Dom Duarte with Isabel Herédia (1995), resulted in a 67% yes vote for the monarchy would a referendum have been held on that day! It's now quite normal that public figures like actors, journalists, university professors, etc. indicate their pro-monarchy opinion, and many see it as a guarantee for the survival of our country in the expanding European Union. The economic crisis and the internal political discredit are other factors that can enforce Monarchist hopes. The discrete and dignified social and cultural services of the actual Duke of Braganza, have a certain echo in the population which regards him as one of the few personalities in the country who is above any suspiction.

We must not forget his vital role in the liberation of East Timor, insisting for more than two decades on the right of an consultation of the people of this territory, with his intense diplomac efforts in Europe and in the USA. An important task of the Duke is without any doubt, strenghtning the ties with the increasingly important Community of the Portuguese Speaking Countries, where his diplomatic work is widely recognized.
N. C.-B.
Since 1975 the Monarchist People's Party (Partido Popular Monárquico = PPM) has taken part in all elections and has presently two seats in the Portuguese parliament.

Read More

Republican propaganda on ANZAC Day

Editorials in The Age are usually dull pieces of writing. The editorial on ANZAC Day 2009 was no exception from this rule. You had to struggle through 4,460 characters to reach the last sentence: “When Australia finally severs its vestigial links with the imperial past, declaring itself to be a republic with its own head of state, we really shall have an independence day, and Anzac Day will not be diminished by it.”

Will everybody be forced to celebrate “republic’s day”. More dreary editorials on the fabulous republic we have to enjoy? What about those people – like me – who are unrepentant Monarchists? Will they be excluded from the Australian community? Or does The Age editorialist believe, they would disappear with the proclamation of “a” republic? He or she has no clue about Monarchists and their stamina.

Even after 139 years of republican power in France, the regime has still to contest with up to 20 percent of French men and women who remain Royalists and who flourish in many organisations and even a political party, L’Alliance Royale. The Brazilian Monarchy was toppled by a military coup in 1889, yet, when a referendum of the form of state was held in 1993, 6,840,551 Brazilians cast their vote in favour of the Monarchy. The Imperial Family is highly respected in Brazil. In Germany only three years ago a Kaisertreue Jugend ("Youth loyal to the Emperor") was founded. 91 years after the Kaiser was forced to go into exile and 68 years after his death a small, but growing number of young Germans turn towards the Monarchy as an alternative to the republican regime.

Republicans mustn’t think they could get rid of us.

But these are all premature thoughts, because the Aussie republicans haven’t won the referendum and they are unlikely to win it, hence Kevin Rudd’s refusal to proceed with the necessary steps to call for a referendum.

Read More

The inevitable republican mantra

After Kevin Rudd had realised that his desire to bless Australia with his republic would not be the triumphant leisure walk he had imagined, the republicans - especially in the media - have fired their salvos with full force against the Australian Monarchy.

In today’s editorial in The Age, continues the line of “the nation's inevitable journey towards a republic”. And concludes: “The summit may be last year's story, but the republic is Australia's future story.” In yesterday’s Age Marilyn Lake, professor of history at La Trobe University, had already stated: “In the next few years, […] we prepare to inaugurate a republic,” inferring that “a” republic was a given.

As a professor of history Marilyn Lake should know better. History demonstrates in all its clarity that nothing is inevitable. Human beings cannot be pressed into certain categories and even the best computers cannot calculate their behaviour, still less their feelings or their attitude on political questions.

Until 1989 we were told that socialism was inevitable. The future belonged to the socialist ideas and Karl Marx had all the answers to solve poverty, exploitation, discrimination. Erich Honnecker, head of state of the German Democratic Republic, famously claimed:

”Den Sozialismus in seinem Lauf
halten weder Ochs noch Esel auf.”
(“The course of socialism will neither be hindered by oxen nor by donkeys.”)

After the collapse of the East European Communist systems even the Chinese Communist Party discovered the “charm of capitalism”. The future belonged to unlimited free markets systems, so we were told. Capitalism had won and the few remaining doubters were ridiculed. Can’t you remember?

These days we see what happened to the inevitable conquest of free market ideology.

Certainly as a historian Marilyn Lake could easily refer to the rise and fall of many other ideologies which for a shorter or longer time had captured the attention, and even love, of the political class. Republicanism is only one of many ideologies. And it is doomed like any other ideology, because it has failed in many parts of the world. To see the proof of this thesis read the newspapers and watch the nightly news programmes.

Read More

No republic in Australia

So, the republic is off the agenda in Australia. Much to the chagrin of The Age, as could be expected. Michelle Grattan did not write a comment, which would have been the most likely column to express her regret about the government’s decision not to proceed with a legally meaningless and unconstitutional plebiscite on "a" republic. No, she used the style of a journalistic report, which in a journalist's credo should give an unbiased account of facts.

In today’s article Republic off Rudd radar one year on Grattan has managed to contact seven pro-republican politicians and outspoken republicans to get their reaction. How many Monarchists did she ask for their opinion? None. Zero. Not one. As if they did not exist, wiped off the Australian continent. May be they do not exist in the Ms. Grattan’s circles, which would not be a surprise. But a quick internet search would demonstrate how easy it is to find Australian Monarchists.

Don't journalistic ethics demand that she listen to the other side as well? She and her employer obviously do not like Monarchists and the Australian Monarchy, but every first year journalist would receive a dressing down if (s)he fails to present the two sides of the coin.

Not so The Age. 7 : 0, that’s even better than the “most enthusiastic endorsement at last year's 2020 Summit” for “a” republic, when handpicked summitteers acclaimed their own grandeur and wisdom. Hardly a democratic process if you exclude Monarchists from the discussion panels.

But don’t let democracy or facts get in your way when you promote the republic.

Read More