Addition to the Post Below

I feel I must add something to the post below I had intended to say when I decided to write it but which slipped my mind when I actually got to it. Keeping in mind what I said below I must also point out that I am adamantly opposed to the principle of putting the monarchy up for a vote in a referendum. I object to it (though were it done I certainly would have participated to help effect the end I desired) on principle because I believe in the concept of legitimate authority. To be specific I believe that the Crown is the legitimate authority of Australia and no vote, in which the public can be or can be attempted to be manipulated by a biased media with an agenda and dishonest politicians can legitimately say that H.M. Elizabeth II is not the Queen of Australia. I think that even holding the referendum itself (keeping in mind what I said about it being a credit to the Australian constitution that the government could not decide this on its' own -I'm saying the decision should be beyond all) is a product of the degenerated "fast food" culture of the modern first world. The referendum and the thinking behind it, to a very large extent at least, I think is a symptom of this culture in which everything is viewed in terms of immediate gratification and everything is seen as disposable. So, even something as ancient as the monarchy, can have its existence in Australia subject to the whim of a majority which can decide to retain or discard the Crown if at any moment it fails to please them. To many people today do not appreciate the ancient, mystical nature of the monarchy and view like anything else in their lives, which they can accept or dispose of at will. This very attitude robs monarchy of one of its greatest assets which is the ability to set itself apart and view things dispassionately because it keeps the monarchy in a constant state of crisis-mode for fear that any little thing could be blown out of proportion to cause the public to vote to discard the monarchy as they would any other passing trend which held them fascinated for a time but which they quickly tired of to move on to the next 'latest' thing. The world today is suffering from severe A.D.D. and it pains me that any monarchy should be subject to such whims and fancies. Am I clear?

Anniversary of the Australian Referendum

I had not planned to post on this subject as there are plenty of others who have, however, somewhat after the fact I decided that contemporary monarchist victories are so few and far between that I'd give my two cents. The vote of November 6, 1999 rejecting an Australian republic was a victory for the monarchy and should be celebrated as such. However, I may be paranoid, but it is no time for monarchists to rest on their laurels and I'm proud of the Australian monarchists for not doing so. The number of those supportive of a republic in the land of Oz are still far too high and if the republican traitors had managed to come up with some coherent plan as to what sort of republic they were advocating I fear they might have done better. In some ways they lost because they could not tell Australians what sort of republic they were for and why they were for it. Their only real message was that they were against the Australian constitutional monarchy.

Loyal Australians have also kept their noses to the grindstone because the republicans have not accepted defeat. Like "democrats" the world over they champion democracy on the assumption that the people can be made to agree with them and when the people do not they quickly call for a new vote and another new vote, re-packaging and re-branding their snake oil until 51% of the public will buy it. Fortunately, the Australian government (which is actually quite different from the British constitutional monarchy despite what the republicans would have Australians believe) does not allow for constitutional changes without the consent of the public. Were that not the case Australia might have already been reduced to dreary republicanism by a simple decision of the legislature. So, there is at least a fighting chance and so far the Australian monarchists have been putting up a damn good fight and I salute them for it.

As usual though, you have one side fighting like the gallant knights of old and the other side fighting like rhetorical terrorists. Probably the tactic that angers me the most, and which I would think proud Australians would find downright insulting to themselves and their ancestors, is the tired line that by being a constitutional monarchy, sharing a sovereign with Great Britain, modern Australia is somehow immature and only by becoming a republic will they show how they have "grown up". In the first place, there should be no discussion of "independence". The Australians as a people have always been an independent lot, growing out of the rugged determination required to tame and settle their fierce continent. Even as part of the British Empire there was something unique about Australia, just as their was about every other member. When I hear someone say that the Australian monarchy is some sort of sign of immaturity I cannot help but wonder if these same limp-wristed republican traitors would call "immature" the men who stormed the beaches of Gallipoli, who held off the triumphant legions of Marshal Rommel in Tobruk or in more recent decades who crawled into communist booby-trapped tunnels in south Vietnam.

The history of Australia and its place in the British Empire cannot be changed, cannot be erased and it should be embraced as it was that history that made the Commonwealth of Australia the 'young and free' nation that it is today. I was glad to see that Prince William will be visiting Australia in the not-to-distant future and I hope a proper welcome is given to Australia's future king and that it will still be around when his turn comes. If any are so obsessed with republicanism as to turn their back on all of Australian history I would suggest a quick trip north to Indonesia, Taiwan or Vietnam would be a quicker and easier way for them to content themselves.