The Republican Menace in Australia

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.

Dutch Royal Visit to Australia

Currently, Their Majesties King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of The Netherlands are visiting the Commonwealth of Australia. The focus is, of course, on friendship and furthering close ties between the two countries. Many outside of the area may not know that the Dutch-Australian connection goes back a very long way. Such a connection should, however, be obvious given how many Dutch names predominate in and around Australia. In the past, this was even more evident. The island of Tasmania was originally known as Van Diemen's Land in honor of the Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies at the time it was explored and the Australian continent itself, early on, was often referred to as "New Holland" because the region was first explored and mapped by Dutch navigators in the 17th Century. They did not nothing to actually establish control over the area and, a short time later, the British arrived and began establishing the colonies that grew into the countries we know today. In centuries past, the Netherlands was quite dominant in the region, having sole access to Japan, control of Formosa, the East Indies, Ceylon and ties to other areas.

The establishment of Australia came after the rivalry and series of wars between England and The Netherlands so that they have a history of mostly friendly relations. This will certainly be what is highlighted on this royal visit. The closest the two countries ever worked together was undoubtedly during the Second World War when the Dutch East Indies was conquered by Japan and those Dutch who could escape fled to Australia which became the headquarters of the Allied war effort in Southeast Asia. Dutch forces trained in Australia, Dutch submarines (O-Boats) operated from Australian ports and so on. However, while state visits such as the one happening now always emphasis the best of relations, there have been periods of tensions between the Netherlands and Australia. During the Boer War, thousands of Australians volunteered to fight for the British Empire whereas, while the Netherlands was not officially involved, Dutch opinion, including that of the Queen, was strongly sympathetic to the Boers, their distant cousins.

More recently, although the Dutch and Australians fought side by side in World War II against the Axis powers, after the war tensions arose over the Dutch fight to maintain their empire or at least some portion of it for the Dutch and mixed-race people of the East Indies. When the Netherlands was trying to maintain temporary control over West New Guinea, as a prelude to it becoming a country of its own for Dutch and mixed-race people, Australia opposed any effort to maintain a Dutch foothold in the area. Australia was certainly not the only power to do so though as the U.K. and U.S.A. also put pressure on the Dutch to abandon the area to the newly independent Indonesia. Current problems, under normal circumstances, would likely have caused Australia to regret this course of action but since these are not normal circumstances in this day and age, it is more likely the Dutch who regret having ever stood up for themselves in the first place.

In any event, as it stands today, Australia and The Netherlands are on friendly terms as I would prefer all monarchies to be and I hope the visit of the Orange royals to the Land Down Under is a resounding success.

How Australia Could Have Changed Royal History

Today, monarchists in the United Kingdom generally rest easy that the institution which is the foundation of the British government is secure. Republican traitors are annoying but remain, so far, a vocal and over-publicized minority while most people either support the monarchy or at least do not feel that doing away with it would result in any change significant enough to be worth the effort. Hardly an ideal situation in my view but still an improvement over that which exists in numerous Commonwealth Realms. Monarchists in these countries must be ever vigilant against the constant struggle with the republican, anti-British xenophobes who are ceaseless in their efforts to tear down the existing system of constitutional monarchy. Dealing with this problem has caused some differences of opinion among monarchists, primarily between those who wish to defend the ties which the monarchy provides with Great Britain and the rest of the Anglo-sphere, the British heritage of the country and for a brave few even the legacy of the late, great British Empire; and then there are those who wish to emphasize the separate nature of “their” monarchy from that of Britain, playing up the fact that legally these are all separate monarchies which just happen to share one monarch who just happens to reside in London the vast majority of the time.

Personally, I prefer to defend it all in total but am not averse to any strategy that would work. In no Commonwealth Realm has the struggle been more intense and critical than in Australia, mostly due to the level of anti-all-things-British bigotry that has become fashionable there. However, after seeing how ecstatic Australians went for all things Danish after a lovely Australian girl captured the heart of Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark, with all the excitement of their being an Australian Queen in the oldest monarchy in Europe, it made me see a potential solution, albeit one unlikely to ever be taken up as serious. It helped to form my opinion that if the sons of the Prince of Wales would marry girls from the Commonwealth Realms, it would bring about the utter ruination of republicanism in those countries. Prince William, of course, chose an English girl and for all the girls Prince Harry has had his eye on, none have hailed from Canada or Australia. So much for that idea. Secondarily, however, I have also long been of the opinion that it would be a good idea to have junior members of the House of Windsor appointed to the position of Governor-General in the Commonwealth Realms.

This would, as I see it, serve a dual purpose. It would, hopefully, help to strengthen ties between the realms and Great Britain as well as with the monarchy by having an actual member of the Royal Family as the monarch’s representative in the country. Further, it would serve as a good form of preparation for those royals who are high up in the line of succession. Serving as the monarch’s representative would seem to me to be an ideal way of learning the trade of being the actual monarch for that country and the others some day in the future. Again, however, I realize most would roll their eyes at the very notion of having a royal Governor-General. It would mean having a Governor-General who was British and many people seem to think, for some reason my damaged mind cannot fathom, that this would be an unspeakable humiliation and a sign of degrading subservience to the old mother country. Personally, I have never seen any Commonwealth Realm treat their Governor-General in anything close to a subservient fashion but, I suppose, expecting these sorts of people to make sense is asking too much.

However, I was rather surprised when a British friend of mine (now residing in a Commonwealth Realm) mentioned that, while certainly unlikely, such a thing had very nearly happened before. Most reading this may be well aware but for those who were, like I was once, ignorant of this bit of history, I will relate: the Prince of Wales, starting in the 1970’s, made it known that he would very much liked to have been appointed Governor-General for Australia. In my view, this would have been a brilliant idea. The Prince of Wales had attended school in Australia for about a year in his youth, has always been very fond of the country and it would have solved the ever-present problem for almost all Princes of Wales in royal history of giving him something tangible and important to do. It was a job that needed to be done, a job that he was well suited to doing and one that would have provided good training for his future as monarch. But, obviously, though it was talked about seriously for some time, it never happened. The Australian government effectively said, “no” to the idea (if any objections came from the British side, I have not heard of it) and this was quite a blow to the Prince of Wales who said, “What are you supposed to think when you are prepared to do something to help and you are told you are not wanted?”

The problem is due to one of things that I find most frustrating about government in general in the English-speaking world outside of the United States which is that there is a difference between what the law says can be done and what “convention” says can be done. Legally, of course, the Queen appoints the Governor-General and, as far as I know, can appoint whomsoever she chooses. The convention, however, is that the Queen must appoint the candidate chosen by the Prime Minister of the country in question. Further, while, again, as far as I know, there is no law that says the Governor-General must be a native or resident of the country in question, the convention has been established that only an Australian can be appointed Governor-General of Australia and only a Canadian can be appointed Governor-General of Canada and so on. So, there were objections that having the Prince of Wales as Governor-General of Australia would be quite impossible. He is not “Australian” and was not put forward as a candidate by the Australian government. The dismissal of the Australian government by Governor-General Sir John Kerr on the Queen’s authority in 1975 has also been cited as a reason why the Prince of Wales was refused for the position. This, incidentally, was also a case of people objecting to a Governor-General doing something which he had the right, according to the law, to do but which, by convention, was something he was not expected to do.

Sir Ninian Stephen, Governor-General of Australia from 1982 to 1989, reportedly planned to name the Prince of Wales as his choice to succeed him in the office but that the idea was thwarted by Prime Minister Bob Hawke who, in explaining much later why he had opposed it, revealed that the precedent did not matter so much in his decision as did the fact that he is a traitor. He said in an interview long after the fact that, “It came up at some stage. I made it quite clear it wasn’t on. We’re in favor of a republic. The idea of doubling the dose…held no appeal.” By “we”, I assume he meant the Labor Party of which he was leader, a party which describes itself as democratic-socialist and which has made treason against the Australian sovereign, by pushing for a republic regardless of the will of the Australian public, a part of their official party platform. Had the Prince of Wales been appointed Governor-General, it might have killed that movement in its infancy and strengthened the bonds between the Crown and Australia.

I cannot help but think of the possible changes to royal history that might have occurred had the Australians welcomed the Prince of Wales with open arms. Being admittedly in favor of the idea, openly biased and completely partial, naturally they are all positive changes in my mind. Imagine a newly wed Prince Charles and Princess Diana moving to Australia. Prince William would have been a toddler there and the presence of two future heirs would certainly have given a boost to monarchism in Australia. The Prince and Princess of Wales, together in a distant country far from their usual circle of friends (and with no Camilla close at hand) might have been just the thing to draw them closer together and save their marriage. Had there been no divorce and thus no subsequent fling with the Egyptian playboy Dodi Fayed, Diana might still be alive today, the Princess of Wales and future Queen. It seems an idyllic family scene to my mind.

Of course, there is always the possibility that things might have gone differently. The level of anti-British sentiment in Australia has never been something I have been able to comprehend. I cannot imagine looking back on the British Empire with anything but a surge of pride at being part of the greatest human endeavor in the history of the world, I cannot imagine the mentality of the people of a country wishing to change their national flag and I cannot imagine viewing people who look the same as you and speak the same language as you, who even share the same religion, customs and ancestry as you as a “foreign” people. To me, it all seems completely irrational but it exists nonetheless and so there might well have been problems. Still, I think it laudable that the Prince of Wales desired the position, I think he should have been appointed to it and, far-fetched or not, I still think it would be beneficial for all if younger members of the Royal Family did spend time serving in a viceregal capacity. It was considered once, and it almost changed the course of royal history. Why not consider it again and, this time, give it a try? In 2007 it was reported that Prince William was interested in becoming Governor-General of Australia but that Prime Minister John Howard vetoed the idea, saying it could only go to someone who was “in every way Australian”. How exactly Prince William differs so radically from someone born and raised in Australia, he did not explain.

Australia in World War II

The Commonwealth of Australia came of age as a country in the Twentieth Century. Australian forces had proven themselves in the First World War in numerous engagements, from the brutal stalemate of Gallipoli to their hard charging success in the Middle East. Australia was a growing, thriving country that fit in well with the British Empire. All serious people understood that this was essential for Australia in terms of national defense. With a small population it had an army of less than 100,000 men, a navy which could boast no larger warships than two cruisers and an air force of less than 300, mostly outdated, airplanes. The Australian armed forces, with their courage and rugged resilience, could hit above their weight but there was no realistic way the country could stand alone against the potential threats they faced. The most immediate threat faced by Australia was the Empire of Japan and this was understood well before the outbreak of war. Japan was the only country in the region that had naval and air forces capable of attacking Australia and it had the manpower available to have Australia totally outmatched.

This disparity was the reason why Australia was most reluctant to see the Anglo-Japanese alliance come to an end in 1921. It improved relations with the United States but the Americans would make no promises to defend Australia or any part of the British Empire in case of attack and so the Australians preferred to maintain the alliance with Japan at least until Australian military strength could be increased to a level that would give Japan pause should the “Land of the Rising Sun” turn hostile. This, however, was not to be and the alliance was terminated which necessitated Australia holding closely to Great Britain and the rest of the empire as the country would have to depend on the Royal Navy to be their shield against a possible Japanese attack. Later, anti-British elements in Australia would pour scorn on this policy but it was, putting history and sentiment aside, the only sensible thing for Australia to do. Thus, as concerned events in Europe, whatever action or inaction the British government took, they could count on Australia’s full support. When war broke out over the German invasion of Poland in 1939 there was no debate, if Britain was at war with Germany then Australia was as well.

Naturally, Australia was concerned about their own security given that Japan was part of the Axis but, in what turned out to be a major and costly mistake for Great Britain, the leadership in London assured Australia that there was no real danger of war with Japan. Australian forces were mobilized for action on the continent of Europe but the German conquest of France was so swift that the British had been forced to pull out before the Australians arrived. Still, their presence was felt soon enough as Australian pilots gave good service in the Battle of Britain and ships of the Royal Australian Navy scored several successes in the Mediterranean against the Italians. Australian troops first saw major action in the extremely successful Operation Compass in North Africa which drove the Italians out of Egypt and deep into Libya. Although often outnumbered, the Australians were backed up by British tanks and artillery that the Italians had no answer for and the Australian troops won a string of victories in North Africa in 1941. Their most important prize was the capture of the port city of Tobruk along with 25,000 Italian prisoners in January. But the British offensive was stopped and the situation changed dramatically with the arrival of the German “Afrika Korps” under General Erwin Rommel.

Australians defending Tobruk

Rightly guessing his enemy to be tired and over-stretched, Rommel threw caution to the wind and launched an immediate counter-offensive that drove the Allied forces back. However, the Australians proved their worth in what must be remembered as one of the proudest pages in Australian military history. Rommel was determined to take Tobruk and the garrison that defended it was largely Australian, commanded first by Australian General Sir Leslie Morshead, a tough, strict, no-nonsense general who would win more than his share of victories in World War II. Asked to hold Tobruk for two months, the hard fighting Australians held on for the better part of seven until November of 1941 when the siege was lifted, withstanding numerous, ferocious assaults by German and Italian forces. The Royal Australian Navy too played an important part in the gallant defense of Tobruk by ferrying supplies to the embattled garrison in spite of heavy attacks by Italo-German naval and air forces. The fighting was fierce and the sacrifices were great but the Australians held the port, taking everything that Rommel threw at them and earned the status of heroes.

Australian forces would serve with distinction throughout the North African campaign but, of course, by the end of 1941 there was a new and more immediate enemy to worry about when after the first week of December 1941 the Empire of Japan launched attacks on Hawaii, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia where many Australian troops were stationed. Because of the focus on the war in Europe, where the British were fighting for their lives, the British Empire was militarily weak in East Asia. To put it another way, they were focused on defending the front door from Germany and Italy when the back door was kicked in by Japan.
Still, despite having few forces available and being largely unprepared, Australian forces fought as hard as their countrymen in Europe and North Africa. In the swift and stunning onslaught by Japanese forces under General Yamashita in Malaysia it was the Australians who were brought in after the Indian forces were decimated on the Slim River. At Johor, with their backs to the wall of fortress Singapore, the hard-fighting Australians brought the Japanese to a halt, inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy. Unable to break the Australians, the Japanese were forced to flank them with an amphibious landing. Breaking through the Indian forces holding that line, the Australians finally had to pull back.

Execution of an Australian POW

Singapore was the linchpin of British military strategy in the region and it was a shock to the world when the vital port city surrendered to a Japanese army that was much smaller and almost out of ammunition. Almost 15,000 Australians were among those British Imperial forces who became prisoners of the Japanese, representing about 25% of all Australian forces serving overseas. It was a terrible blow that Churchill himself lamented as the worst disaster in British military history. Those taken prisoner would suffer immense hardships and often cruelty. Thousands of Australians would not survive captivity, dying from disease, starvation, brutal treatment or outright execution. With a death rate some seven times that of prisoners held by Germany or Italy, it was something Australians would never forget. Yet, more setbacks were in store as the Japanese swept across Southeast Asia and the Pacific. An early target was Rabaul in New Britain off Papua New Guinea (itself an Australian possession at the time). Reinforcements couldn’t reach Rabaul and the garrison was forced to surrender. Many were executed by the Japanese and many more were killed when the ship they were on was torpedoed by a U.S. submarine. Rabaul then became a major base for Japanese forces in the South Pacific.

In the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia) Australian forces were sent to reinforce the small Dutch colonial army but it was an almost hopeless enterprise from the start. Japanese victories at sea meant that island garrisons were cut off and even if not defeated outright would have to surrender eventually. Yet, some did not as on Timor where the Australians waged a guerilla war against the Japanese for a year. Others who did surrender often met a grisly fate as over 300 Australian prisoners of war were massacred by the Japanese in a series of mass killings in February of 1942. Eventually, almost all of the East Indies fell to Japan and there was a massive buildup of military forces in Australia as fears grew of a Japanese attack.

Training to defend the homeland

Such fears were not hysteria as there was a Japanese proposal for an invasion of Australia. However, it was never adopted and while there was a more realistic plan for a strike southward to sever the shipping lanes between Australia and America this plan was dropped in favor of Admiral Yamamoto’s campaign aimed at the island of Midway. As we know, the Battle of Midway was a disaster for Japan and represented a turning point in the Pacific War after which, almost without exception, Japanese forces suffered one defeat after another. Prior to the fall of the Philippines, U.S. General Douglas MacArthur arrived in Australia to take command of all Allied forces in the southwest Pacific. This was a major turning point for Australia as the government, for the first time, turned to look toward the United States as a strategic defense partner rather than Great Britain. That policy has remained in place from 1942 until the present day. Australia was a huge and vital staging ground for Allied operations in World War II with over a million American troops passing through the country. Australia supplied a great deal of the resources necessary for the war and along with Australian military personnel, Australian civilians at home and on other islands in the vicinity often gave invaluable service as observers in coastal areas, keeping watch and informing the Allied command of Japanese movements.

Unlike the experience of those Australians serving in North Africa against the Germans and Italians, where a measure of chivalry still lingered, what those in the east were fighting was no “Gentleman’s War”. As American and Australian forces went on the offensive in New Guinea, more Australian forces were massacred after surrendering by the Japanese and, as a result, the Australians generally stopped giving any quarter to the enemy which, in any event, was often not requested anyway. After being defeated on Guadalcanal, Japanese forces began to pull back to New Guinea but Australian and American air power devastated their forces at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. It was one more step in the turning tide as American and Australian forces began driving the Japanese out of New Guinea, striking rapidly while bypassing stronger points that would wither away in isolation. From about the middle of 1943 onward it was the Australian and other Allied forces that were on the advance throughout New Guinea though the fighting was fierce and the conditions brutal for the troops on both sides.

The bombing of Darwin

At home, while in no danger from invasion, Australia was certainly not immune from attack. Starting in February of 1942 the Japanese launched air attacks on the northern port of Darwin, putting it out of action and killing some 235 people. Periodic Japanese bombing attacks on northern Australia continued throughout the rest of the year and most of 1943. Fortunately, Japan did not have sufficient aircraft or available nearby bases for these to do much serious damage. And, there were also attacks from the sea to worry about. Several German raiders and one German U-Boat operated in Australian waters during the war and Japanese submarines sunk a number of ships around Australia. In May of 1942 three Japanese midget-submarines infiltrated Sidney harbor to attack Allied ships. Two were detected and destroyed before they could make their attack but a third managed to sink a converted ferry before it too was lost. The operation had been a failure but it made the point that even Sidney was not immune from attack. In the naval fight it was fortunate that the Japanese did not use their submarines to best advantage but still, some managed to do quite a bit of damage, none more so than the I-21 which sank 45,000 tons of Allied shipping in Australian waters. Whether close to home or on the other side of the world the Royal Australian Navy gave good service against the navies of Germany, Italy and Japan.

Starting in 1944, the Australian military contribution to the war effort began to be downsized. For a country with so small a population, it was already trying to do too much and the British and American leadership agreed that Australia would be of more help putting more men back to work on the home front to support the war effort of the other Allies, particularly the United States, which had more than sufficient numbers of men and machines to carry on the fight. Still, the remaining Australian forces played an important part in re-taking New Guinea, liberating the Philippines and in such naval battles as Leyte Gulf which practically destroyed the Imperial Japanese Navy as an effective fighting force forever. Australian personnel also played an important part in driving the Japanese out of the Dutch East Indies, the Bismarck Archipelago and the Solomon Islands. From the Greek islands and Libya to Iran to the Philippines, the Australians fought with equal tenacity all over the world. Australian military leaders were even organizing their contribution to the planned invasion of Japan which thankfully proved unnecessary. At the very end, as the Allies accepted the Japanese surrender on the deck of the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, it was General (later Field Marshal) Sir Thomas Blamey, victorious commander of several operations in the New Guinea campaign, who signed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Blamey accepting Japan's surrender

The Australians had fought long and hard in World War II and paid a heavy price. In the fighting against Axis forces in Europe and Africa the Australians lost a little over 9,500 men killed and about as many wounded. Against the Japanese the Australians lost about 17,500 killed and 14,000 wounded. About 8,000 Australians were captured by German and Italian forces, mostly in Greece or as a result of being shot down in the air war. Most were relatively well treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The largest number, over 21,000, were captured by the Japanese, mostly in the early part of the war. Unlike their countrymen in Europe, only about 14,000 of these men survived their captivity. Almost half of the total number of Australians who lost their lives in the Pacific War died after being taken prisoner rather than in battle. World War II affected Australia as no other conflict ever had. From the burning sands of Tobruk to the steamy jungles of New Guinea the Royal Australian Armed forces had earned a reputation for determined defense and courageous attacks. Industrial growth was spurred by war production at home, a greater interest was taken in world affairs and Australian security policy shifted from alignment with Britain toward alignment with the United States. There was also a move to grow the Australian population by encouraging immigration. Some of these changes worked out for the best, others did not, however, good and bad alike, the Second World War had a huge impact on Australia and for a country of its size, the Australian contribution proved decisive in several areas to the ultimate Allied victory.

Happy Birthday Australia!

It was on this day in 1900 that Her Majesty the Queen-Empress Victoria signed into law the act uniting all the former British colonies of Australia into one federal government, creating the Commonwealth of Australia as we know it today. Like all countries, Australia has its stereotypes but they have been ones that most in the 'Land Down Under' would probably take pride in rather than be offended by. In many ways, Australia has been invaluable to the cause of monarchy, particularly in the English-speaking world but also beyond. Traditionally known as a land with a frontier spirit, of rugged individualists, very independent, rough, tough as well as relaxed and fun-loving, Australia was living proof that a less flattering stereotype, of monarchists being a bunch of stern, dour, snobs was certainly not true. Of course, the cultural problems that have affected most of the rest of the world did not stop at Australia's shores and in recent years the country has been having something of an identity crisis with arguments over how or even whether to recognize and take pride in Australia's history within the British Empire, changes that took Australia dramatically away from the former "frontier" spirit that prevailed and even arguments over whether or not to scrap the Australian flag. As with most places, things are not much like they used to be.

However, that being said, the loyal people of Australia have so far managed to hold on to the fundamentals. The flag has not been changed, Australia Day has not been moved to another date, "God Save the Queen" is still the royal anthem and a referendum calling for a republic was soundly defeated in favor of the current constitutional monarchy. The monarchists in Australia have been tireless in their defense of the Australian constitution, flag and monarchy and deserve the respect and admiration of monarchists around the world for the fight they have carried on for many years now against a republican element that refuses to go away, no matter how many times the Australian public tells them, "no thanks mate". So, a happy birthday to the Commonwealth of Australia and a special Mad Monarchist salute to all the loyal sons and daughters of Australia who have held fast in their defense of their Queen and Country. God bless you, God bless Australia and God Save the Queen!

Queen-Empress Victoria

Queen Elizabeth II of Australia

Flag Flaps, Part III, Australia

The debate over the Australian national flag is one of those annoying little issues that can be extremely frustrating. Those who advocate scrapping the Australian flag for a new design have never come anywhere close to gaining the support of a majority of the people and yet, partly thanks to an often treasonous mainstream media, the issue never seems to go away. It continues to be brought up and discussed over and over again in spite of the fact that no poll has ever shown more than 32% in favor of changing the flag and recent polls have shown even less support than that. Those who favor changing the flag invariably wrap themselves in the most popular, “warm and fuzzy” catch-phrases of modern political-speech like “uniqueness” and “multiculturalism”, yet, when you boil it down, it seems what they are most upset about is that Australia never had a really bloody, horrific revolutionary war in order to become an independent country. The Australian national flag came about in much the same way that the independent Commonwealth of Australia itself did, moderately, peacefully and over a period of time. That would seem to be the ideal way for a country to gain independence, yet it seems these people wish things could have been different and rather than be proud of how mature and reasonable Australia behaved in the past, they wish there had been a murderous tantrum instead. Does that sound mad? Give it some thought.

The primary complaint made by the anti-Australian flag crowd is the presence of the Union Jack in the canton. They dislike this because the Union Jack is also the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and because it is a reminder of the colonial history of Australia as the flag is basically a modified British Blue Ensign. This is entirely understandable because Australia began as a collection of British colonies, as part of the British Empire and so the flag of the British Empire was not the flag of a foreign country, but the flag of Australia and every other part of the British Empire. As Australia came together as one country and gained independence the British Blue Ensign was modified to become the uniquely Australian flag we know today. This was not the case in, for example, the United States of America which started out with a defaced British Red Ensign but dropped the Union Jack (as it was then) also called the “King’s Colours” when independence was declared during the Revolutionary War. It would have been rather absurd for rebel colonists in America to continue flying the flag of a country they were at war with, whose soldiers they were trying to kill as best they could. Yet, none of that happened with Australia. Britain was never an enemy of Australia, they have never fought a war against each other and so the British flag was not the flag of an enemy but the flag of the “mother country” and the British Empire which was the seed bed that the Commonwealth of Australia grew in.

There was no radical change in flag design because there was no radical break with Great Britain. Australian independence came about step by step, legally and peacefully with no bitterness or animosity. It seems some wish it had not been so. These are the sort of people who are, make no mistake about it, traitors in their heart and soul who I am sure wince in physical pain when reading the words of the great Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies who called himself, “British to the bootstraps” and who said that, “…the common devotion to the throne is part of the very cement of the whole national structure.” There should be no doubt that everyone agitating for changing the Australian national flag is also a republican (which makes them a traitor) and some will proudly admit it. Some will smugly proclaim that they oppose the Australian national flag because it features the Union Jack and the Union Jack symbolizes the British monarchy (which is also the Australian monarchy but good luck getting any of them to say that). So, again, it seems that they cannot enjoy being an independent country because that independence came with no hateful, violent break with the past.

Of course, the anti-flag crowd would never admit to such a thing. Instead, they complain that the Australian flag is too similar to other flags and that it does not represent the modern, multi-cultural Australia because all the symbolism on the flag is British (which is not entirely true but that is the argument). The idea that it is a problem that the flag looks too similar to some others is certainly an absurd one. The only other sovereign state with a flag similar to that of Australia is New Zealand, so it is not as though there is a great deal of confusion gripping the peoples of the world. One other flag is similar and that is all. There would be more grounds for confusion over the United States flag which is similar to at least two other countries; Liberia and Malaysia. Yet, no one complains. You will certainly never hear anyone in Texas complain that the beloved Lone Star must be tossed aside because some might confuse it with the flag of Chile. How about Turkey and Tunisia or Slovakia, Slovenia and Russia? What about Indonesia and Monaco? What about Mexico, Italy and Ireland? Chad and Andorra? It is, frankly, ridiculous and more than that, it contradicts their very own, paramount, argument concerning multi-culturalism.

There is, after all, a reason why the flags of New Zealand and Australia are similar just as there is a reason why the flags of Canada, India and South Africa used to be similar; all were a part of the British Empire. Obviously, those wishing to change the flag despise that fact and hate their own history but if they value multiculturalism so highly, surely there was never a more multicultural entity than the British Empire. The British Empire included the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples (all of them outside the United States), French-Canadians in Quebec, Dutch Boers, Africans of various tribes, the Hindu states of India, the Buddhists of Burma, the Chinese of Hong Kong and the largest population of Muslims in the world. What on earth could be more multicultural than that? And how is it that the Union Jack (which is really the only part of the flag most of these people object to) cannot be considered a symbol of multicultural Australia when it is still the symbol of a very multicultural Great Britain which has sizeable minorities of peoples from countries as far flung as Jamaica, Poland and Pakistan? Of course, they will counter that with an even more absurd argument which is that it is just not “proper” for an independent country to have the flag of another country as part of its own. This, frankly, displays an astounding level of stupidity.

For one thing, it is not just “another country” but the country that, whether these people like it or not, founded and brought up what became the modern Commonwealth of Australia. These people cannot seem to get beyond their own prejudices and accept the fact that there would be no Australia if it had not been for the British Empire and those first British ships and British colonists who came and built the country from the ground up. However, the argument that it is “improper” for an independent country to feature, as part of its flag, the flag of another country, while being grossly insulting to other countries and states and provinces around the world that do the same, is so astoundingly absurd, I can really only think of one way to best respond to it and that is with a question. I would really like to pose this to one of the advocates of changing the Australian flag: “Why are you speaking English then?” After all, you’re a totally different and multicultural country now, so why do you still speak the language of your former “colonial masters”? Isn’t it “improper” for one independent country to speak the exact same language as another country? I know, I know, that sounds extremely silly but that is the whole point. Australians speak English because they were founded by English-speaking peoples just like how the Australian flag features the Union Jack because they were founded by people for whom the Union Jack was “their” flag and proudly so.

The Australian flag, the flag that has accompanied Australians to battle in both world wars and every conflict since, represents the entirety of Australian history whereas these people seem to want a flag that represents only the Australia of today which might not even be the Australia of tomorrow. It is absurd. However, it is part of a larger and more insidious effort to divorce Australia entirely from the traditions and values that made the country. Part of that, all here should take notice, is the monarchy. There is scarcely any argument made for changing the flag that could not, and for the most part has not been, used to argue for abolishing the monarchy as well. For many people across the entire English-speaking world those three crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick that make up the Union Jack represent monarchy like no other symbol. The enemies of monarchy are always trying to hide it, change it and remove it from view and all monarchists in the world should stand together in opposition to this. All monarchists everywhere and most certainly all those in the English-speaking world should give all of our support to our loyal brethren ‘Down Under’ in defending and maintaining the Australian flag.

God Save the Queen! God bless Australia and keep it flying!

Arguing with Australian Republicans

Republicans are quite a nonsensical bunch no matter where in the world you find them and those infecting the great Commonwealth of Australia are certainly no different. Their arguments are so full of holes and lack any credibility to such a great extent that they have been so far unsuccessful in their treasonous efforts in spite of having virtually the entire mainstream media, political establishment and university system all helping them push their agenda. It would be like losing a football match to a man with only one leg. Part of the problem is that the republican position is being championed by people, more often than not, on the far-left fringe of the political spectrum and yet they instinctively try to use a conservative, nationalistic sort of argument which they are singularly unsuited to make. They end up sounding like Karl Marx trying to explain the merits of capitalism; they do not do a very poor job of it, come off as being terribly insincere and are extremely unconvincing. They try, like most traitors, to cloak their cause in the mantle of patriotism and love of country and yet, again, this comes off as very insincere when they are advocating basically doing away with the country as it has always been, establishing a totally new form of government and probably even scrapping the national flag for a younger, more stylish model. Saying you love your country but want to change the very foundation of it, the symbols of it and deny nearly the whole history of it would leave anyone doubtful about your honesty.

Yet, that is the first argument republicans tend to make; the nationalistic argument. They claim that it is wrong for someone who is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and who lives predominately in Great Britain to also be the sovereign of Australia. They claim that Australia should not have a “foreign” sovereign (sometimes they will say “Head of State” but, in actuality, the Queen is not the Australian “Head of State” but the “Sovereign” of Australia). The first absurdity of this argument is that, not too many years ago, no one in Australia would have considered anyone from Great Britain, or Canada or South Africa or New Zealand to be “foreign” at all. It takes an odd sort of person to view the Queen of Australia as being “foreign” to the Land Down Under. She looks the same as most of them, speaks the same language, worships the same God and has much the same history. Yet, for most of those making this argument, their double-standard is so blatantly obvious it is a wonder they do not trip over it. After all, just like the UK, Australia is a parliamentary democracy with a population of people from every race, nationality and ethnic group under the sun. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and people of various other religions and no religion at all that are accepted as Australians and, indeed, the people making the republican argument are often the same ones demanding that it be so. They seem to be trying to argue at the same time that anyone can be an Australian, except for the Queen or any other Windsor royals.

Furthermore, if this point of the Queen not being a native-born Australian is so important; why does it not extend to others? Australia is a member of the United Nations despite the Secretary-General being a Korean and not an Australian. How can any Australian be a Catholic when the Pope is an Argentine and not an Australian? The republicans cannot answer it of course because, as has been said, they are trying to make a nationalist argument while being fundamentally inter-nationalist in their core beliefs. Aside from the background of the socialist principles most uphold there is the positions they advocate in favor of greater power going to international organizations, few to no restrictions on immigration and their whole mindset of being “citizens of the world” rather than being “Australia for the Australians” which is an attitude they would no doubt abhor. Likewise, even if they tried, they would be unable to make such an argument, not only because it goes against their core beliefs but also because they would be unable to concretely define what an “Australian” is when trying to exclude any member of the Royal Family. After all, the royals share the same ethnic background as most Australians, certainly as the early settlers and builders of modern Australia which is a product of the British Empire. In excluding any member of the Royal Family as being “foreign” to Australia would also necessarily exclude anyone of English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish background who was born and raised in Australia. After all, the blood that runs in the veins of any human being does not change because of what patch of ground they happen to be born on.

Even if the republicans were to then make a more rigidly exclusive cultural argument to base nationality on, their case would still hold no water since immigrants are being welcomed into Australia every day and allowed and even encouraged to maintain their own ethnic traditions, beliefs and culture. So, there is really no way in which the royals could be excluded from the idea of being Australian. They cannot be excluded based on history, for their history is bound up with Australia, nor on blood as it is the same as many Australians and no one, certainly not Australian republicans, would ever dream of basing nationality on ethnicity anyway. Finally, on the legal side of things, which bases nationality on the legality of government documents, the royals are, by that standard, Australian already. No matter how one looks at the republican argument, there is simply no basis for saying that the monarchy should be abolished because the royals are British and not Australian. The Royal Family is British of course but they are no more or less British than they are also Australian, Canadian or any other number of legal rather than ethnic nationalities. So, if the republicans are to persist in their campaign, and they certainly are, that argument is simply not sufficient. What else do they have to offer?

One common but tired tactic is to use the argument of democracy. The monarchy, after all, in un-democratic. It makes the highest “office” in the land something beyond the reach of popularity. Yet, as un-democratic as the monarchy might be, this argument does not hold water either. No one votes for the monarch, true enough, yet the very fact that Australia has already had one referendum on republicanism and with the Queen having stated that she will cheerfully abide by any referendum on the future of the monarchy means that the Queen can be voted out of office if the Australian people wish it. In this way, the Australian monarchy is actually more democratic than most of the major democratic republics of the world. Even in the United States a simple popular vote is not sufficient to remove a sitting president from office nor can any popular vote do anything so drastic as to change the very form of government and the basis for government authority. In the same way, in the United States the Supreme Court can overrule a president and the popular will and not one member of that body is elected or accountable to popular opinion. The fact that Australians can decide whether they want a monarchy or a republic means that they already have more freedom and popular power than republics like France or Germany where it is actually illegal to change the form of government in any way.

It is also worth mentioning that just because a government is democratic and a leader is democratically chosen does not mean it will be better. The most common “worst case scenario” cited is usually Adolf Hitler who rose to power by democratic means after failing to take power by force. However, if that is unfair, perhaps Adolf should be given a rest and we look to a less extreme example such as the United States; the most prominent republic and one of the oldest republics in the world. President Andrew Jackson was democratically elected and quite popular yet he was someone who carried out ethnic cleansing in his own country. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was democratically elected, numerous times, was quite popular and he put thousands of innocent American citizens in concentration camps simply because of their race or ethnicity. An elected tyrant is a tyrant all the same and the tyranny of the mob is often even more gruesome than the tyranny of one man. However, we all should know that the “will of the people” is something everyone cites when it coincides with their own opinions and denounces when it does not.

There is also not much reason to believe republicans when they claim such great devotion for democracy in the first place. In large part these are the same people who empower unelected judges to rule on social issues rather than leaving it to the public to decide. The same people who support international organizations like the UN or the EU, neither of whom have a top leadership that is elected by the ordinary people but most of all we can see the republican contempt for democracy in their own reaction to the referendum on the monarchy. There was a vote for switching to a republic, Australians voted “no” and the republicans swiftly decided to ignore that vote and immediately began working for another referendum and no doubt if that one comes back in favor of the monarchy they will wish for a third and a fourth until the public returns the answer that the republicans desire. This is certainly not respecting the will of the majority, it is no more than a charade. Furthermore, the republicans have made no secret of their desire to pose the question at a time when emotional factors or, in other words, an irrational mentality, would make the public more likely to vote the way they wish them to vote. This leads to another argument; how good a job the monarchy has done for Australia.

Whatever one thinks of the current system of constitutional monarchy in Australia, few could doubt that it has served quite well. No system is perfect of course but there are certainly a great many more countries with a variety of forms of government that are worse off than Australia and not that many that are better off or even equal to life in Australia. It may seem odd to some to judge just how good a job the Queen of Australia is doing considering that the Queen is rarely in Australia to act for herself. Her part is played by what most republicans claim to want; an Australian head of state and the Queen through the Governor-General invariably follows the advice of the elected government. However, it would seem even more ridiculous to advocate someone losing their job without even evaluating how that person is doing in his or her job. The ironic thing about the republicans is that, intentionally or not, they admit that the Queen of Australia has done a most excellent job in her role as sovereign of the country. This can be seen in what many republicans say they want for the next referendum. They want to wait until the current monarch dies and the Crown passes to the Prince of Wales to put the issue before the Australian voters yet again. Why would they do this? The answer is simple and quite telling.

Even the most ardent republican has been forced to admit that the Queen has done a superb job and is extremely popular. Therefore, they admit that it is rather futile to try to get rid of the Australian monarchy while the Queen is still alive. Instead, they want to wait for a tragedy, circling like so many vultures, to swoop down with a referendum when the less popular Prince of Wales comes to the throne. Think about what that means. The Queen has done such a good job they have admitted that opposing her is useless. So their only hope is to get rid of the monarchy under Prince Charles before he has been given a chance to prove himself. In effect, their fear is that the Prince of Wales might prove to be just as capable and popular a King of Australia as his mother was Queen. That should tell the public all they need to know about the character of the republicans. They admit that Australia has a great monarch in the person of the Queen and are terrified that the next monarch might be just as great. They would rather have an inept politician in place of the sovereign than successful monarch. They can’t take the risk that Australia might actually do well and Australians might actually love and admire their sovereign. That is their nightmare and it is one that only an especially despicable person could ever have.

Queen Elizabeth II: 60 Years on the Throne

It was on this day in 1953 that HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and her other realms and territories was formally crowned at Westminster Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Probably the most prominent royal figure in the world, the monarch who reigns over more diverse lands and peoples than any other, HM the Queen celebrates her diamond jubilee, an honor only previously achieved by Queen Victoria in the annals of British royal history, this year, succeeding her father to the throne in 1952. What can be said about HM the Queen that has not been said already? Even the most grandiose tribute would fail to truly convey what a remarkable sovereign she has been and continues to be. To be succinct, HM the Queen has, for the last 60 years, been an impeccable constitutional monarch for all of her people in every corner of the world without complaint, without wearying and with dignity, compassion, stoic strength, quiet faith and human warmth. She has simply been exemplary. No country in the world today could imagine, much less ask for, a more tirelessly devoted, sincerely committed, wise and experienced sovereign. Around the world, when it comes to true leadership and inspirational respect, the Queen has set the standard by which others are judged.

During her life, the Queen has seen the highest and lowest points in recent British history. She was born into the most dominant, beloved, envied and respected monarchy in the world. She saw her country bombed, faced with the threat of invasion and endure with calm, solid courage, doing her part along the way in what became known as the “finest hour” of British civilization. Born when the British Empire was at its peak in size and influence, in the decades after World War II she saw the British Empire exit the world stage and enter the history books, earning her first historic distinction as being the daughter of Britain’s last King-Emperor. During her reign the Britain of empire and naval supremacy was replaced by the Britain of the social welfare state. She saw her generation, the British people who ‘kept calm and carried on’ replaced by the generation of “swinging London”. The era of television, sexual revolution, the Cold War and the Common Market of decolonization, the Commonwealth, the internet and the “War on Terror” have all also been the era of Queen Elizabeth II. When one considers what a vastly different world exists today as compared to 1952 it becomes less a cliché and all the more real what a remarkable rock of stability the Queen has been in the past six decades.

Great Britain changed dramatically in her first few years on the throne and the world has changed a great deal since then. In 1952 Pakistan still recognized her as Queen, the Showa Emperor still reigned over Japan, the Vietnam conflict was a French problem (and the Prince Imperiale of Vietnam represented his country at her coronation), the British South Africa Company still held sway in what later became Rhodesia, Generalissimo Franco ruled Spain, The Netherlands still executed criminals, America and Japan were still “technically” at war, Egypt still had a king and Harry Truman was President of the United States. Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. What a different world it was. The Queen would become the first reigning monarch to visit Australia and New Zealand and she saw the French actually consider joining the Commonwealth (what would Henry V or Edward III have thought of that?). The Queen was the first reigning monarch to personally open the Canadian Parliament in 1957 and in 1982 signed the Constitution Act making entirely independent of the United Kingdom. She also bid farewell to such African dominions as Rhodesia and South Africa over their refusal to embrace majority rule and end racial favoritism.

The Queen has been totally fearless in the fulfilling of her duty, shrugging off the possibility of assassination on visits from Ghana to Quebec. When a pathetic case fired six blanks at her while she was riding to the Trooping of the Colour in 1982, the Queen displayed her expertise as a horsewoman, bringing the animal quickly under control, keeping calm and carrying on with her duties. When everything was “swinging” in England in the 1960’s the Queen set an example of strong, traditional family values in true Victorian style. Yet, like Queen Victoria, her offspring did not always follow her upright and ’stiff upper lip’ example. In 1976, just to show there were no hard feelings, the Queen visited the United States to mark the bicentennial of the declaration of independence, even taking a spin on the dance floor with President Ford (I told you she was courageous). In the 1980’s she saw Argentina seize the Falkland Islands only to be quickly liberated by the British armed forces a short time later, her second son among them. Toward the end of the decade anything traditional was becoming unfashionable and the devoted, disciplined, dutiful Queen did not seem to have much in common with the growing “me” generation.

The next several years were not happy ones for the Queen or the Royal Family in general. 1992 was that infamous “horrible year” when the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales came apart in a strikingly undignified and all too public fashion and the Queen’s beloved Windsor Castle was devastated by fire. Still, the Queen never wavered in her own dignity, decorum and devotion to duty. In 1991 she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress but the bad news still outnumbered the good. The Duke and Duchess of York split up, the Princess Royal got a divorce, Germans threw eggs at the Queen while on a state visit and fickle public emotionalism forced the Queen into the ridiculous position of paying income tax. Ridiculous because, “officially”, she is paying it to herself. The monarchy was scrutinized and criticized like never before by a moody public that seemed impossible to please and which expected their royals to be both grand and common, glamorous and penny-pinching and to embody values they themselves largely dropped from their own lives. This over emotionalism boiled over at the end of the decade with the passing of the Lady Diana which resulted in Britons weeping in the streets, screaming for centuries of tradition to be tossed aside and, most selfishly, ridiculing the Queen for staying close to her grandsons who had just lost their mother rather than rushing to London to hold the hands of a mob weeping over a woman most of them knew only from tabloids.

Thankfully, to some extent at least, once the funeral of Diana was over, Britons tended to look back at their recent behavior and be rather ashamed of themselves. Most came to recognize that the Queen had done the right thing and had put the needs of her family before her own popularity. There was also a considerable time during this period when the U.K. (and much of the Commonwealth for that matter) went through a number of controversial prime ministers and extremely unpopular prime ministers. When the monarchy was at a rather low point, Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed to be the bright, young, golden boy of British politics. Yet, eventually the Blair idol was revealed to have clay feet. He was followed by the embarrassingly lackluster Gordon Brown and then a coalition government so little did any of the choices appeal to the majority of British people. After witnessing such a succession of corrupt, incompetent political leaders, more and more Britons were reminded of how fortunate they are to have the monarchy and how unspeakable horrible it would be to have someone like Blair, Brown, Cameron or Clegg as President.

In 1999 this issue was put to the people in a referendum in the Commonwealth of Australia. Naturally, the Queen would remain impartial, non-partisan and accede to the wishes of her Australian people even as they voted on whether or not she would remain Queen of Australia or be replaced by a presidential republic. Perhaps taking into account how many times politicians had disappointed them, compared to the Queen who has always remained spotless in her public image and devoted to her duty, Australians decided an unelected partisan hack would be no improvement over the constitutional monarchy and wisely voted to keep the Queen on the Australian throne. From their point of highest popularity (which was still not much) the republicans in Britain and the Commonwealth saw their support dwindle away as more and more people awoke to the fact that the Queen had never let them down whereas politicians almost invariably did. When it came to politicians, hopes would always be dashed, promises would doubtless be broken, statistics manipulated and so on but the Queen, for sixty years, has always been the one constant in the Anglo-sphere firmament. Through it all she has been reliable, ever present, ever serving, ever dutiful and truly impartial. The republican fringe has had to admit defeat, at least so long as the Queen reigns, because she has simply ‘never put a foot wrong’ and given them no weakness to exploit, no grounds on which they could possibly criticize her.

For sixty years Her Majesty the Queen has been rock of stability, a comforting light in stormy seas, a steady, guiding hand in tumultuous times and a spotless symbol of unchanging values in ever-changing times. The Queen personifies all that is best about the British and Commonwealth people and their shared history and heritage. Her story has been the story of her people just as the story of her ancestors have been the history of the English-speaking world. She has, for sixty years, perfectly fulfilled every requirement of a modern, constitutional monarch. The Queen is the brightest, most polished and most reliable aspect of the entire Westminster parliamentary legacy. The Queen is Great Britain. The Queen is Australia. The Queen is Canada. The Queen is New Zealand. The Queen is all her realms and territories. For sixty years she has given more of herself, with greater poise, nobility, graciousness, charity and selflessness than any other government figure of any country in the Anglo-sphere. And, she has kept an unblemished record while doing it. No amount of praise, no tribute could do her service justice. So, again, all that can really be said is that she has simply been exemplary. Congratulations to Her Majesty, congratulations to the House of Windsor and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!