Recently, traitorous politician Bill Shorten, leader of the Labor Party of Australia, announced that if he becomes the next Prime Minister, he will hold another referendum on the monarchy in his first term (article here
). For quite a few decades at this point, the mainstream media, the political class and the academics (all the usual suspects) have been pushing for Australia to become a republic and to sever the last remaining link with the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, that link being HM the Queen. As most readers probably know, this culminated in a referendum in 1999 on abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic with a president chosen by parliament. A slight majority of the public voting to remain a constitutional monarchy and none of the Australian states backed the move. That, along with new royal weddings, babies and the usual thing that generates warm feelings for the monarchy, meant that the republican debate was set aside for a while. However, the respite did not last long.
Today, the situation seems more serious given that the political class seems to be increasingly republican. The Green Party has long supported Australia becoming a republic, the Labor Party does too as seen by Shorten’s promise but even the (allegedly) right-of-center Liberal Party is currently led by a republican, the sitting Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The only difference seems to be when this should happen as Prime Minister Turnbull said that he sees no chance for a republican victory while Queen Elizabeth II still lives but that, after Her Majesty departs this mortal coil, the time will be right to strike as treason will be more readily accepted against the less popular Prince of Wales than against the widely respected Elizabeth II. That, in and of itself, says a great deal about the character of republican traitors who pretend to be respected statesmen. Shorten, on the other hand, sees no reason to wait for the current Queen of Australia to depart this life and has no problem overthrowing this 91-year old World War II veteran who is the longest reigning monarch in British history. So, the leaders of both major Australian parties want to betray their sovereign, one just wants to do it sooner rather than later.
This has been particularly irritating for me as it so neatly fits into several issues I have recently been in rather heated arguments over. For one thing, it shows how even modern, muzzled, all but if not outright ceremonial constitutional monarchs cannot win. Those who complain that they are useless, rubber-stamps for the ruling class never stop to ask themselves why, if this is so, does the ruling class so consistently favor getting rid of them? The Australians, to my annoyance, have gone ‘all in’ with the republican mindset and I mean to include in that even the *good* Australians. They have basically said that Australia is a “crowned republic” and that a republic with a monarch is better than a republic without one. They maintain that they already do have an Australian Head of State as they argue that the Governor-General is actually the Head of State while HM the Queen is “Sovereign” of Australia but not the Australian “Head of State”. Yet, all of this ‘meeting halfway’ with the republicans has not been sufficient to settle the issue. Despite, as Australian monarchists themselves claim, being a republic in all but name already, the drive to remove the Queen as Queen of Australia still persists.
Personally, I think many of these groups in the Anglosphere, trying to do the right thing, do not help much in the long-term. For instance, the insistence on stressing the *Australian* monarchy or the *Canadian* monarchy and objecting to any use of the term, “the British monarchy” has never seemed like a proper hill to fight for to me. Not only does not seem a fight worth having, I do not see how it could ever possibly succeed. The Queen of Australia was born in Britain, raised in Britain, lives in Britain and so do all of her children, grandchildren and so on. You are simply never going to be able to make people see the British monarchy and the Australian monarchy as two totally separate things, even though, in terms of technical legality, they are. In Australia in particular, the problem that this does not solve is the acceptable level of anti-British bigotry in the country. There are no mobs at the embassy or violence against tourists but, let us be honest, the British are the one group of people it is most acceptable to denigrate, insult, mock and disparage in Australia. Saying anything derogatory about another ethnic group will land you in very hot water but you can say anything you like about the “bloody Poms” in Australia and get a laugh.
This is stupid but, I think, extremely significant because the fact is that the British and Australian peoples are actually not different peoples at all. By heaping scorn on the British, the Australians are heaping scorn on their own forefathers. Recently, I was rather surprised to hear a certain American speak about the War for Independence with at least a certain degree of regret on the grounds that it had created the false impression that the British and Americans were different peoples, that European colonists in America were no longer Europeans but, somehow, had become an entirely different breed. This was long ago but, obviously, this same thinking has led to noticeable problems in other countries of the former British Empire, from Canada to Australia, with these people suffering from an identity crisis in which they can only define themselves in a negative way; by what they are “not”. This is one reason why, I think, even ceremonial monarchs are still targets for the political class. They need people to be disconnected from their roots, their history, their heritage and so on. A monarch, even a powerless, largely ceremonial, constitutional monarch is still a symbol that these power-hungry politicians want to see brought down.
For the same reason, debates about the monarchy in Australia also tend to go hand in hand with the ‘on again, off again’ debate about the Australian flag with the treason-crowd wishing to do away with the current design because the presence of the Union Jack in the canton makes it far ‘too British’ for the very anti-British Australians. The point is to separate people from their roots, water down their identity and they will say or do anything to make that happen. In Canada, for example, it was argued that the traditional national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, was ‘too British’ and that, under a new and unique design, the French Canadians of Quebec would feel ‘more Canadian’ and less like a different people. Well, as the facts of history have shown, they actually are a different people and changing the flag did nothing to change that fact. Quebec still tried to secede from Canada and becoming a republic on their own, however, by the time that happened, Quebec had too many non-French Canadians in the province to achieve the result that most French Canadians wanted.
Make no mistake about it, if Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull and their kind have their way, Australia will cease to exist entirely. The vilification of the British has consequences. It is all usually wrapped up in the vilification of the British Empire and the desire of modern Australians to distance themselves from it. However, as a former colony, Australia would not exist without the British Empire. Do away with the monarchy, do away with the flag and what is left? The people, you might say. Not so fast. As Mark Steyn wrote early last year
, while Australia has recently reached a record high population of 24 million, this is not the result of growth in the British or even European-descended majority population. Lebanese immigrants to Australia have 4 children per couple, Syrian immigrants have 3.5 while Australian born women have only 1.86. Within a few generations, as Steyn shows, this means that the majority population becomes a minority. Given how democratic we all are these days, that all means the descendants of those who built Australia will have no power at all. How then can Australia be considered Australia at all then? This is why I say these people are traitors, not just traitors to their Queen and country, but traitors to their people, their history, their entire civilization.
Mr. Shortens attempt to seem relevant is all hot air. Yes he supports a Republic but there is much bitterness in Australia regarding our vote not being respected after the 1999 Referendum. I have seen far more negative comments on this republican push than support. It is widely regarded as a distraction from the real problems facing the nation and as a waste of time and money.
I totally agree with you regarding how stupid the idea is of a "crowned republic". It is why even though I am a Monarchist I cannot support these groups.
The Australian National flag is quite popular and the republicans will want to change it. But I should point out that the Australian Republican Movement is not that popular outside of the Elites, but it is still more popular than Ausflag, an organisation that has been trying to change the flag since the 1970's with less and less impact ever decade.
As for them being Traitors, of course they are!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
I really wish you hadn't included the bottom picture!
I don't doubt the hot air but I also don't doubt the downward trend Australia is on and the ability of the ruling class to get what they want, one way or another. Of course it is a distraction, any time any politician starts talking about the flag or the monarchy you can check and see that it's always when there is some problem they want to divert attention from, that still doesn't mean I am going to ignore it. I realize the flag is in less danger than in some other places but you could have said the same about the Canadian Red Ensign and then one day it was gone. If it's all going great down there, I will be overjoyed to be proven wrong but I don't like the way things seem to be going and I'm not going to take a chance.Delete
I really wish Australians would have more babies!
Things aren't great down here but this republican push is something that comes up nearly every season, it's so common it's rather pathetic.
In regards to the flag, the Australian flag was chosen in a competition, so it is regarded as the flag "we" designed. The Canadian Red Ensign it was argued was an Imperial flag that they had no say in. Of course that is complete rot, but in Australia's case that cannot be argued.
The media here is extremely republican, so it gives the impression that the entire country is just waiting for the chance to vote in a republic. The low point was the mid 1990's when every newspaper, magazine, TV station and all but a handful of radio stations supported a republic. For Australia to become a republic at least 4 out of the 6 states had to vote in favour of becoming a republic at the 1999 Referendum, but every state voted against becoming a republic. That means it was one of the biggest defeats for any Australian Referendum. Since then the tide has turned, I first noticed it when Prince William was a teenager, I was in a book store and I saw a book on him that was quite clearly aimed at teenage girls. This week I have seen two magazines with Prince George on the cover. They aren't selling those publications to republicans!
Also thank you for caring, you are quite right all of us who care need to be vigilant.
So do I
I fear you are forgetting who is in charge in a country. True, last time the Australians did not do as they were told but that is why it keeps coming up, it will keep coming up until the republican happens. Surely you've heard all the people who say a republic is "inevitable"? They say that because they know who is in charge.Delete
Most people support the monarchy, the flag and all that. Great. I'm perfectly thrilled. What about tomorrow? What about the demographic decline I pointed out? If they can't change the people's minds, they will change the people, it's happening in plenty of other countries. The ruling class needs rooted out, trusting in the loyalty of the 'celebrity royalists' will not cut it I'm afraid. Visit the Royal Forums and you see tons of people who follow every detail of every royals lives but still have no regard for monarchy at all. It's extremely common.
Again, if things are great, I'm thrilled and you should just ignore me. I don't think they are and I'm also beginning to worry about the attitude of Australians becoming like that of the Japanese who think, because the monarchy has always been there, it always will be and there's no need to concern themselves with it. I see a great people rushing toward the abyss, this republican nonsense being the spearpoint of it, and the idea that this is regarded as 'standard procedure' only makes me more worried, not less.
I can appreciate the ulterior motives you attribute to the political classes, but I fail to see the appeal in abolition for the Australian people.ReplyDelete
For most Australians, the monarchy is meaningless in the context of daily life. So where do they source the venom to abolish the monarchy?
If Australia does this, it could easily cause a cascade of renunciation throughout the commonwealth realms.
I can only speculate what motivates the people who support this other than, as I alluded to, a sort of SJW-type virtue signaling to show how much you hate the empire, how much you're "not British" but never thinking beyond that. As for the potential chain reaction, I greatly fear you will be right about that. I think it's only a matter of time before Jamaica drops the monarchy but if Australia does, I doubt New Zealand and Canada will be far behind.Delete
As someone who thinks the British monarchy should resume sovereignty over their country, I cannot comprehend this. I cannot even begin to understand how the Australians could seek to reject their British identity, but because Republics are the "cool thing" everyone wants to be one? I suppose these people WOULD jump off of a bridge if everyone else was doing it since they seem to be willing to doom their entire civilization over the current political trend.ReplyDelete
I wouldn't lump as all as Traitors, a lot of us still support the Monarchy, and aren't brain washed by the media into becoming more like the US, a lot of us don't want all the immigration that is happening either, but what are we to do? Our democracy is flawed and no major party wants anything but to bring in more immigrants, not to mention the pressure we receive from Foreign Governments to bring in a certain amount each year, there is just very little our word means to the higher ups anymore, even less if we do decide to become a Republic and put even more power in our corrupt Ministers..ReplyDelete
Obviously, I'm not calling loyalists traitors, I refer to Shorten, Turnbull and their cohorts of the political class.Delete
"Pollster Bill Johnson, who, on May 28 and 29 and June 4 and 5, conducted an islandwide survey among 1,008 people, found that 60 per cent of Jamaicans held the view the country would be better off under British rule.ReplyDelete
Conversely, 17 per cent of those surveyed said the country would be worse off had it remained a colony of Britain, while 23 per cent said they did not know. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four per cent."
The Caribbean region has too much sense for that it seems. There is also the reality of aid payments.
Reminds me of the free-state project US libertarians tried in New Hampshire. While it is hardly practical, I wonder what might happen if Anglo monarchists converged on a commonwealth state or an area like Newfoundland.
True but such surveys do not determine policy and the people who actually rule Jamaica seem bent on becoming a republic. As for aid payments, that could have a major impact if anyone believed for a moment that the British were sufficiently willing to take the side of their own monarchy to cut off such payments if Jamaica becomes a republic. They don't because they aren't.Delete
Could the queen appoint members of her own family as viceroys to live and rule in her place in these countries? Or in the extreme case abdicate the throne of Australia for the benefit of one of her descendants, like what happened after the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves? Then the Australian royal couldn't be accused of being a foreign ruler. Or maybe spend parts of the year in other realms, but that might be too costly and weaken her in the UK.ReplyDelete
Hard to appease people who think the queen has too much authority
I have written before that I think appointing members of the Royal Family Governors General of the Commonwealth Realms would be a good thing. The problem is that the modern convention is for the Queen to only appoint who the local Prime Minister chooses and so you get back to the odd situation of the British system of government where what is actual law doesn't apply but standard procedure does.Delete
I also doubt it would really help the anti-foreign hyperbole because the Queen herself is not really "foreign" in a way any other people in the world would understand it. She speaks the same language, looks the same, has the same religion, ethnic background and so on of the vast majority of Australians.
The Canadians, for example, had a Governor-General who was a French-speaking Black woman from Haiti with a husband who wasn't even a Canadian citizen and yet she was considered a Canadian whereas the Queen in London is considered "foreign" by the republican crowd. Your ideas make good sense but the problem is you are offering rational solutions to thoroughly irrational people.