I don’t follow the royals. In fact, I do everything I can to avoid them. No to Diana’s fairytale wedding. No to the Megxit interview with Oprah. And no to Prince Andrew’s claims about sweat. We are what we pay attention to and they don’t interest me, so I click away.
But that changed last week, in the final days of William and Kate’s week-long tour of the Caribbean, when the tone-deaf nature of both the ceremonial plans and impromptu actions of the royal couple gave hope to Republicans in Jamaica and in Australia.
Much has been made of the shots of the royals glad-handing Black spectators through what looked like a cage but was in fact fencing surrounding a football pitch. But my view is that the staged shots of the royal couple in all white, standing stiffly in the same ceremonial Land Rover that Elizabeth and Philip had used to work the crowds in 1962, were worse. They showed, in a way the impromptu footage did not, how oblivious the royals and those surrounding them are about the sea change in attitudes about race and accountability that have swept the globe in the past 60 years.
While the young royals had a chance to start healing the wounds of slavery caused by their ancestors who financially benefitted, they flubbed it. They flubbed it visually by the white saviour parody of the Land Rover escapade, and by having Kate parade around in stunning outfits that looked like they cost every penny of her £35,000 “budget”, which didn’t include the cost of the priceless jewellery she borrowed from the Queen.
They — or more accurately William — flubbed it verbally too. This was his chance to set the record straight by doing more than just referencing slavery, but acknowledging and apologising for the part his ancestor’s played in in trafficking 600,000 Africans to Jamaica between 1655 and 1809 and benefitting financially from their slave labour. A benefit that, as Kate’s revolving finery made plain, continues today.
No wonder Barbados has become a republic and Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness has been forthright about his intention to do the same, saying as such to William’s face during the tour.
If Holness succeeds, this will leave just 13 countries who have the Queen as their monarch and head of state. In contrast, over the past 70 years, 41, or three times that, have become republics. Barbados was the last to step up, at the end of 2021.
Why does any of this matter?
Australian monarchists are fond of saying it doesn’t, though the tenacity of their resistance to getting on board with a popularly supported change belies this. Certainly, republics are more democratic, giving the people rather than an institution of inherited privilege the final say in determining our head of state. The symbolic change matters, too. I for one will drop to my knees in thanks on the day I never have to hear cringe-worthy terms like “Queen of Australia” and “part of the realm” again.
Indeed, instead of ignoring the royal cluelessness and cock-ups that litter the news cycle most days, I’ve decided to embrace them. Because each reminds us of how far we have come as a global community in accepting the harm of enslavement, trafficking and racism, and how it can’t be long before the reign of established privilege — whether it lives in a castle or socialises at the Australian Club — will end.
“Certainly, republics are more democratic, giving the people rather than an institution of inherited privilege the final say in determining our head of state.”
Cannold is right about all the ghastly dress-up pantomime around the monarchy and its parasitical hangers-on. The best thing about it all is that it cannot be taken seriously. If the monarchy tried to take a more active and involved role in real politics it would not have a chance because we all see what it is and how little legitimacy it has. This is good.
But why say a Republic must be more democratic? The touble with Cannold’s argument, as with many in favour of a Republic, is the focus is entirely on the faults of the monarchy, while the Republic is no more than a hazy idealised fantasy. Cannold says nothing about what this Republic would actually be. There are plenty of ways of setting up a republic that would be less democratic than the current arrangement. It is crazy to advocate a Republic without saying what would happen with the powers and functions that are currently held by either the Prime Minister or the GG and how the wehole thing would work. Who or what would be HoS in this Republic? How would any clash between this HoS and the PM be resolved? No matter how power is formally divided between them, if the HoS of this proposed Republic is elected directly by the Australian public then surely the HoS can claim much greater legitimacy than any Prime Minister, who is not elected by anyone. Where will that lead? In Tunisia it has just resulted in the President, elected in 2019, sacking the PM and dissolving Parliament so he can rule by emergency decree. This is not unique. How democratic is that?
So true SSR, I have just watched the Italian election of the President, a 7 year term. They all voted for the signora bianca carta during the early rounds to exclude the local electors then had to reappoint Sergio Matarella, despite his being 80 yo and wanting to retire. The reason for this is to prevent Mario Draghi, currently Premier (PM) becoming Pres, as he’s the only sensible technocrat who can unite the unruly pollies at the moment. In fact, Matarella appointed him when the unholy coalition of Lega and 5 Stelle fell apart and the pandemic hit savagely. He has performed superbly but is it possible that only 2 old men can govern the country sensibly? Is this benevolent ruler stuff? I’d prefer ecoconscious King Chas 3rd rather than a massive mess like that. And popular vote like Trump???? Better the devil we know until we design a fool proof (literally) republican system.
Wrecking is eezy-peezy – replacement with some better, not so much.
I have yet to hear any credible suggestion of what improvement would conferred by abolishing the current arrangement.
Actually, I can’t even recall any suggestion or even a hint, credible or otherwise.
For the record, my English born spouse voted for a republic when, in Talcum’s words “This PM will be remembered as the one who broke the nation’s heart“… 5 years later he joined him in parliament.
I did not, mostly because of the way the Rodent gamed the proposition.
It was awful and traumatic the republic referendum that Howard cynically trashed by putting the cart before the horse.
The thing about Australian culture is that we produce ample quality candidates for a head of state that we all respect, but our lack of clear identity is reflected in our divisive hyper-partisan governance.
I feel like Australian monarchists are our own cultural Taliban fighting to stay relevant in an evolving world. The irony is our populist proletariat PM Bob Hawke, was the architect of rolling out neoliberalism economically and culturally.
Why not just call the GG the President, a purely ceremonial position? I think this is what India does.
Is that not close to Howard’s offer at the last referendum? Replace the GG, chosen by the PM, with a HoS appointed by Parliament?
Anyway, the position of GG is not purely ceremonial, that’s very important. The GG gives assent to all legislation, appoints all the ministers and dissolves Parliament, for a start. If the GG is replaced with a purely ceremonial HoS who is going to do those jobs? That’s why I said all this must be sorted out if we are going to replace the GG with something else. It’s no use saying the GG does not use those powers except as advised by the PM. Why is the GG so weak and helpless? It’s because the GG has almost no legitimacy to act independently under the current arrangement. Give those powers to someone who is elected and it’s all very different.
If on the other hand you and others are serious about a purely ceremonial HoS with no proper functions at all then why not go the whole way and save us all some effort by having no such position? Who needs ceremonies? Why not wheel out various existing high officials to conduct ceremonies when we feel like it, instead of all the bother of inventing some method finding someone, by election or appointment or whatever, to by HoS and do nothing but meaningless ceremonies? Or why not set up some impressive carved statue or monument that we might call ‘The Spirit of Australia’ and call that our head of state? Or just permanently seal off a chamber inside Parliament, permit nobody to go in and say it is where the HoS resides, undisturbed. At least it will not cause any trouble or require much maintenance, and we could encourage a legend that in Australia’s darkest hour the HoS, never seen before, will come forth from the chamber to save us from our foes.
Were the powers of the GG, that currently rely on convention, to be codified in the Constitution as they should be, then they would be self-executing and the role of HoS would indeed be entirely ceremonial. But we needn’t carve a statue or seal off a chamber for this ceremonial role when we already have plenty of culturally significant landmarks to represent the country. My vote is for Uluru, being in the centre of our island continent, and Anangu elders could represent the HoS at formal events, should they agree to the role. No need for popular votes, nor votes by both houses etc. Of course such a change would have to be accompanied by other fundamental changes to the Constitution. I’m a fan of ditching representative parliament for the system of direct democracy that you’ve espoused previously in a comment on another Crikey article SSR, where parliamentarians are drawn on rotation from everyone on the electoral role, like the jury system.
Thanks. Ok, it is arguable to GG’s job can be so defined it requires no conscious input. Might be somewhat challenging to make rules for how to resolve picking who remains or becomes PM when it is not immediately obvious that any one MP actually has a majority in the house. Automatically call a vote of confidence? Who gets to be PM while waiting for the vote? Also, that would seem to give the PM complete control over dissolving Parliament. As Johnson found in the UK, that is not how things work at present, according to the UK’s Supreme Court. All of which illustrates how necessary it is sort out how the powers work and who has them before we blithely scrap the GG and say we are a Republic.
I think that someone here a month or so back – might have been SSR? – recommended Aesop’s King Log as a bipartisan figure of veneration.
Both Belgium & Spain have successfully charged & convicted ex kings for fraud & sexual misdemeanours within the last 20odd years.
The Netherlands more or less skipped the bloodline succession because of the royal consort’s ‘interesting’ WWII history.
The average oik loves pomp & circumstance which is why, failing suitable royals, they adulate/venerate actors or sports figures – Warne, anyone?
The attraction of smells & bells around men in dresses has been a major attraction for many centuries.
Agree. We need to sort out our disastrous parliament before we work ourselves up too much about the bloody royals.
We need to start thinking about a constitution that will stop fruit loops luck Morrison and his merry band of criminals from trashing the place and using the treasury as their own personal bank accounts.
‘Your highness,’ always grabs me as ridiculous. What should we call Andy,’ your lowness?’
royalty and slavery – two sides of the same coin
condoning royalty is condoning slavery
Slavery can get along perfectly well without any monarchy, and vice versa. You might have noticed the USA has never been a monarchy but its involvement in slavery is more than a small footnote in history.
The Sydney Celebs need to be photo-opped at glitzy fund-raisers with other Celebs. Only the Republican movement can lubricate this need.
On more pressing matters, like why the leader of a party always outpolled by the informal vote gets to “act” as PM every so often, they are silent.