Well, I must admit I thought she’d make the ton, the centenary. That hardy German stock, those royal and aristocratic genes. She has several relatives who made triple figures. That must be where vampire legends come from — the aristocracy living on and on while everyone dies around them. It would have been worth seeing her hang on for another four years, if only for the spectacle of seeing her send a congratulatory message to herself.
That wouldn’t have happened, of course, but only because the queen was and is indivisible from her role, a form of pre-modern identity persisting into the world of identities fractured within the self. She was who her position was in relation to the rest of us, a reminder that that was how everyone was, a couple of centuries ago, and had been since the dawn of time. For many Brits, and quite a few Commonwealth citizens of all heritages, that totality — fused with her extraordinary longevity — has been a paradoxical embodiment of permanency. She stood at the juncture of nature and culture, of person and nation, of present and past.
It would thus be foolish to underestimate the degree to which she was a figure not merely of history, but of History, not merely for UK and Commonwealth, but for the world. The Atlantic alliance dominates the West, and the British end of the alliance is held in place in part by mystique: by the unity of the UK and by the person of the queen. She took the throne at 25, in an era of limited publicity, especially for royal princesses. Very little was known of her personally. Everything that would come to be known of her would occur during her reign, so it came to be the habits and doings of the monarch, freighted with authority.
That is obviously not the case with King Charles III, who came to adulthood during the transforming period of the 1960s — on the edge of 21 when Woodstock occurred — this liberating him from a dour and dutiful upbringing. That may have been his personal good luck, but it is a disaster for the projection of power and mystery in his reign. He is too much like the boomers he is from, with his enthusiasms for mystical wilderness, the natural aristocracy of still-nomadic First Peoples, the talking-to-plants, the enthusiasms for The Goons, the love life ‘n all. The crazy talk of skipping him altogether and moving straight to William — which seemed to show a basic misunderstanding of the whole hereditary monarchy sort of thing such commentators were trying to preserve — died away instantly, and has become an immediate relic.
But what has died too is republican hopes that the passing of a monarch — one who fulfilled her role unimpeachably — to a man put together by the same history of enthusiasms, foolishnesses and failed obsessions constituting the lives of most of us would provide the opportunity to put the question of monarchy at issue, especially in Australia. Too late! They don’t muck around, these royal families; they know their business. King Charles III is already a thing, and the fact of the office has asserted itself massively. No one cares about the interchangeable European bicycle monarchies, save for the editor of Grazia. The transfer of British monarchic power really mattered to global actual power.
Too late here? Too soon. Our rather ad hoc republican movement was just getting itself together, in the time of the Albanese government, to hustle the question of a republic back onto centre stage. But it can’t be done now as a “when the queen dies…” plebiscite, which would have been the best shot at getting a “yes” vote. King Charles III will rapidly naturalise himself as an inevitable monarch, unless he is really, really stupid, and the notion of a break will recede into the haze. Any move towards Australian republicanism will have to work on the pure fact of monarchy as its object against. Since Australian republicanism has no social base whatsoever, being, from its ’90s revival, a shy creature of the elites, it will most likely get nowhere. The Albanese government, I would guess, is not going to give the Coalition a culture war they rebuild around.
That the Coalition very much would be able to build upon a republic plebiscite is a measure of the weakening of the republican impulse over recent decades. As, over the past decade, post-Cold War modernity has lost its confidence and crashed to the ground, the passion for an enlightenment view of the world has diminished markedly. The assertion that, hey, humanity can run its own affairs has taken a battering through two decades of failed wars, crashes, failed recoveries, the collapse of conventional politics, the rise of conspiracy theories and the failure of populism to deliver.
Thus, the success of the late Queen Elizabeth II was unquestionably partly due to her personal qualities. But the larger share of it was the weakness and inability of the left and progressives to offer an alternative of any meaning and liberation worth the risk of junking something that provided a reasonable amount of both to many.
The left has been unable able to provide an attractive alternative to a society whose grounded meaning has been utterly undermined by the nihilism of capitalism, the market, and the asociality of new technologies. So, bizarrely, it is pre-modern institutions that now offer a limit to that steady annihilation. Any republican relying on a generational uprising against monarchy, or a non-Anglo one, may be in for a rude shock. The snarling and snarking that might be directed at her will simply prove the point. Such attacks are always grounded in envy and defeat, the radicalism of fools.
History lasts a long time. We are, in some ways, in a position that is backward of the heady moment of 1776, when a bunch of American radicals suggested that a nation could be held together by words and ideas alone, rather than the embodiment of a person. That experiment may come crashing down in 2024, as the third Carlite era sails on. At this point we should be thankful that the Russians didn’t bring the tsars back. Maybe this is all the prelude to a great dialectical historical fling forward.
But before you put any money on that, check whose face is on the notes first. Vale Elizabeth Windsor. Perhaps her passing is an occasion for progressives to reflect on what, in their program, they are not offering, or not valuing, that speaks to the human needs that can make a small and compact woman a source of meaning and a force of history.
With the passing of the queen, does republicanism have a chance in Australia? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I voted for a republic all those years ago, but my mind has changed in the intervening years and particularly in the wake of Brexit.
I have zero interest in rearranging the deck chairs of our democracy. We have bigger issues to worry about and devoting column inches and political time and energy to defending or fighting the monarchy is just another sop for the masses.
Additionally, I genuinely like the ties with the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth does include many republics
In fact it includes more republics than it does monarchies. There are the 15 that Charles rules over, and 3 more besides. The rest of the 54 are republics.
Rules ? You mean presides!
You can have ties to the Commonwealth without tugging your forelock to inbred inheritors.
Also I think the fact that Parliament can’t sit for the next two weeks because of rules imposed by that same overseas institution suggests it is anything but benign.
Interesting opinion but one should not assume it fits everybody’s; that’s why a republic is seen as more representative vs top down unelected and privileged (foreign) monarchs.
Rundles comments are why I have subscribed. That you.
The death of a monarch has been a good reminder of how silly the whole thing is – royalty seems a throwback to a previous time and place, and paid lip service to as the institution loses any real power.
Why Australians cling to this shell of an antiquated institution is beyond me. It’s so hard to see what symbolism we get out of having a figurehead half a world away as our “ruler”.
That’s exactly the opposite of everything I’ve said in the article. Which is fine. But the article is based on the fact that peoples connection to monarchy has quite possibly grown stronger over the past decade or so. Because, as I argue, everything else has come apart. If it doesnt seem silly to millions, is it in fact silly?
counterpoint: my daughter (33) posted on instagram:
I feel nothing about the queen dying – soz
Well, I feel nothing that your daughter feels nothing – what of it?
Excellent response, and fully in line with Guy’s article. Paradoxes, sentiment, inertia, triage-ing/prioritisation and other irrationalities are all real and powerful and dynamic forces.
She feels even less for you
Ignorance is insensate – Dunning-Kruger.
Exactly. When one denies reality, and who would deny the place, means and deeds of Elizabeth, Queen and leader, throughout her ninety six years.
I keep hearing about all her deeds but see very little evidence of her achieving anything but a long life of figure-heading.
I’d argue that the monarchy has survived because nothing is expected of it other than its symbolism. Politicians let us down because politicians are expected to do something, meanwhile the worst that can happen with Royalty is a sense that they’re abusing their privilege.
If the monarchy had to rule in a meaningful sense, I’d imagine it would fall out of favour really quickly.
“it doesnt seem silly to millions, is it in fact silly?”
Well, yes. Emperor has no clothes and all. But I take your point. I’ll say it’s all silly *to me*, but I say that about a lot of things that people think are matters of deadly seriousness (like young earth creationism or vicarious atonement) so what the hell do I know?
Rational thought is utterly miraculous, when you think about how it happens. That it isn’t especially common should therefore come as no surprise.
It’s tangential to this topic, but I think the book The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier & Dan Sperber demystifies the role and function of rationality from an evolutionary perspective.
Ta, I’ll give that a read. Seems consistent with archeological and neurological arguments I’ve read that suggest that the ability to tell stories, and thereby motivate your peers, evolved in Homo Sapiens in between the first and second waves to leave Africa. Reasoning is (IMO) just a particular style of story telling, supported by some rules (axioms) we’ve figured out along the way.
We live in a benign dictatorship where the representative of the monarch, the Governor General can dismiss a democratically elected government and can secretly swear in a Prime Minister to any number of ministries. Forward our Australian Republic
Viva la Republic! Where the reserve powers magically disappear, yet the new Head of State apparently isn’t bound by convention to act on the advice of their Prime Minister.
It’s this sort of muddle-headed thinking that lost it for you lot last time, and until you figure that out you should prepare for a repeat performance.
Was the prime minister, and de facto head of state, not party to this secret swearing in? When we renounce all checks and balances to this practice, does this resolve the problem?
After experiencing Trump – my former yearning for a Republic has withered on the vine.
We just need to tweak our existing Constitution for accountability, openness and a truly free press.
Is this not what happened in a multitude of monarchies, including France, where the monarchy was somewhat absolute and rule without oversite?
I’d agree that the British monarchy has survived as it has been more adaptable, and as you say has become increasingly more symbolic.
The English Monarchy has survived because of many trials and errors over many years till the finally got it right in about 1707 I think. The Act of Settlement. Monarch part of the same religion as the vast majority of its subjects – C of E and general Protestantism. The final overthrow of the Stuart and Jacobin lines with their Catholic backgrounds and tendencies to the throne and the ascension of the House of Hanover. From this time onward, the victory by William of Orange, the English Monarchy is a Constitutional type. It shares its power with Parliament. It didn’t follow the French or Russian absolutist monarchies and both of these didn’t survive. To survive, the English monarchy has to share power. They simply lack the expertise to govern in their own right, It is largely symbolic. The Monarchy knows this and therefore their task is easiest.
And a major tourist attraction. It’s certainly a boon for the press.
Italy has more tourists and its a republic!
The monarchy couldn’t save Britain from either Boris de Pfeffel Johnson or Liz Truss. Both in one day was all too much HRH.
Being careless democracies means Brexit by accident and insurrection by MAGA.
Apart from Harry and Meghan, who escaped the cloistered confines of public life.
perhaps we need to examine why this dead weight royalty provides stability to the commonwealth nations.
Anyway, I’m off to buy shares in Women’s Weekly. The next few months will be a publishing bonanza.
Not sure it provides stability to developing nations, often diplomacy and trade relationships can achieve that anyway; the empire has declined due to many former Crown colonies becoming republics.
Yes, I am not sure either. I just watched an interesting video on you tube about African nations and the colonial legacies. Our structural problems re first nations is a result of overt structural racism of the Empire.
On another note the chasers internal memo touched a few raw nerves.
Yet they have stayed in the Commonwealth.
But most are Republics
Damn straight that’s funny. Shares in Women’s Weekly which if you don’t already know comes out every Month!! I think it is a dodgy private equity group that own it though and you would have to buy a pretty damn big chunk of it. My advice? Plastics!!!
‘Thanks’ sez he, sinking to the bottom of the pool.
Interesting Guy. I suspect there is also a resurgence of subtle racism in our society for what may be the similar/same reasons. I expect numerous responses of denial incorporating the John Howard “but”.
Many millions of people don’t find religion too silly to eschew its destructive & deleterious edicts.
I reckon the only thing saving Britain from civil war this winter will have nothing to do with the Westminster System and much to do with the many Britains freezing in their homes while the neocons in charge enable more profiteering by the fossil fuel barons.
Cold wet rain is not conducive to street action – funny if their next heatwave/drought, coming after a harsh winter, were to snap their over wound spring.
There is a reason hares go mad in March.
Britain will never have a Civil War over material issues. Their radicalism is over-rated. They have a Tory Government and it is the working classes which have, since time immemorial and contrary to popular belief of the history popularised by historians and ‘thinkers’ of a more liberal, left wing persuasion, have kept the Tories in power and progressed their various key agenda. It was the extension of the franchise which saw the Tory Government of Benjamin Disraeli returned again and again as the big cities of Liverpool and Manchester voted for him. It was almost universal manhood suffrage in 1867 in the UK. And it was poorer poms that put the Tories in and supported his grand Empire plan, with the world a sea of red colonies. The Liberals were circumspect about financing and managing such a large group of disparate peoples and they were proved right in the end. Poms are basically stupid. They wouldn’t have an empire without the hard yakka of dumb city born and bred working lads sacrificing themselves for causes they know nothing about. They would rather fantasise about far off India and Burma than deal with the problems in their face like, how are they going to survive past 65 if they make it that far. How are they going to feed their family. Why doesn’t my crumby East end gaff have a dunny with running water. Like when are we going to get a tarred road, not a dirt one ruining the washing we put out whenever a horse and cart goes by. Like how am I going to get out of this place? This is why there will never be a revolution in dear old England. It is a horrible place and the people there don’t know any better.
Any source for this: ‘peoples connection to monarchy has quite possibly grown stronger over the past decade or so’?
Why would it, especially as WASPs and Howard’s Anglo-Irish cohorts age and fade. legacy media audiences too, into the sunset of empire….. with diverse and more educated generations following.
The latter are more likely to have no connection with the UK, but more with Asia and Europe, yet our legacy media focuses on the (conservative) ‘Anglosphere’ (except NZ and Canada), while desperate to disappear Asia and Europe….
If you read the US press’s reactions – they love to focus on the monarchy. It’s an ongoing fascination that they can’t get enough of.
Kids of today, here and there can’t get enough of a princes and princesses. Deep down, I expect it must be a mythical need that most of us won’t admit too; Hollywood (and China – in an ancient historical sense) obsess over the glory days of yore.
Lord of the Rings & Game of Thrones success have a lot to say about the attractions of Monarchy.
Then why 1776?
Yes. In a nutshell, Yes. I am quite weary of the human experiment, with small-brained people with nothing else to occupy their brains – except maybe for sports, gambling and sports gambling, which were also pre-occupations of HRH when she was still alive – than the so-called mystique of a far off monarch, remote from the daily trials of her countrymen and her Commonwealth ‘subjects’, who has lived a life of privilege and wealth and never stepped into the shoes of any of her countrymen or subjects. Yes. If millions like her then they are stupid and their passing, along with her’s, would, in line with the Darwin awards logic, make the world a better place because simply there are less stupid people in it.
People’s connection to monarchy may have grown but that doesn’t signify the worth or value of the monarchy. It simply signifies the insecurity of weak-minded people. Nothing more.
You say everything has come apart, what do you mean by everything and what part of this everything has come apart? The world is always fracturing. Gorbachev’s death was more of a reminder how everything has come apart. His death, and I not a supporter or liker, has more significance of a world that once was than the dear, old corgi loving, horse racing fanatic and real estate purveyor – old Liz, who seemed to live in her own bubble even while her own country has been going down the gurgler for decades.
Mate I work with silly people every day who would eat this sort of s### up. And they are not even monarchists.
Lucky it wasn’t randy andy hey
Actual Civil War in the US between 1861 to 65 – less we forget if we look at their model. Trump has opened up a lot of the rot in their presidential/Federal system.
They based their political system on the Roman Republic but are veering dangerously to a quasi Empire system that may actually doom its democracy.
I fondly remember the old throwback once referred to as the Grand Old Party of the Republic.
I think the issue is many don’t care either way. Apathy is quite rife.
The one thing those pushing the republic agenda won’t discuss is exactly what process will determine who ends up occupying the position of President.
Do we want attention seeking populists trailing their cape at every opportunity or one selected by an exhaustive parliamentary process…..?
It’s as if this fundamental question is the question no republican wants asked.
Guy, I feel Fintan O’Toole of The Irish times sums up the long reign of Elizabeth II perfectly when he describes her as a monarch who presided over the death of her own majesty and experienced the replacement of consecrated mystery by sanctified celebrity. She is renowned for her endurance in the face of an empire that was dying when she came to the throne, declined rapidly during her reign and is now no more. On her death, the country that built that empire is in rapid decline. It is a country that, in hearkening back to what it considered its glory days, bred a toxic nationalism that saw its people vote in majority to impose draconian trade sanctions on itself by leaving the EU. Despite this self-immolation, she endured, she saw a new history in the making, and she looked and was looked upon as both a celebrity and a symbol of unity in a divided country. I feel for her family at this sad time. As you say, the symbols and symbolism will endure – the Royal family is, after all, the backbone of British tourism and if that particular golden goose was to perish, a presently sick Britain would be on life support. I think Australians, republicans and monarchists alike, have to ask themselves quo vadis? There is 17000km between Canberra and London. What really holds that link together? Precious little in my book.
Very well said. Fintan is often very insightful. I seem to remember him saying Brexit was the English working class cutting itself, a despair so deep self-harm was the relief.
An interesting corollary, O’Toole is an excellent journalist, but ignored or seldom cited by Australian media which prefers UK &/or US conservative viewpoints and input, especially via NewsCorp.
Always surprised as to how our legacy media avoids good coverage from or about Europe/EU, Canada, NZ, Ireland, Asia, Africa etc. versus platforming the nativists conservative libertarian ‘Anglosphere’ for above median age voters and power; when ‘a cat stuck up a tree in LA’, overrides everything.
He is a regular, if not frequent, guest on LNL.
I’m really not sure why we need a Head of State. We seem to function reasonably well these days with a Governor General with no powers but who is there to do the ceremonial stuff when it’s required. When I say “no powers” it’s because I assume we removed his right to knock off a government after Kerr? Didn’t we? If not, we should.
Thats why I reckon if we do need one for the ceremonial stuff, why can’t we just do it like we do now? Get a consensus from the parliament, the people we’ve already elected, to pick one, like we do now. We don’t even need to change the title if we don’t want to call them a president (Trump rather took the gloss off that title), but just take the monarchy out of the equation. The queen always said she was happy to go when we asked but we could never agree on what we wanted.
The bit that confused me when we had the referendum was all the people shouting about wanting to be able to vote for their head of state. Probably most of them whinge about having to vote for politicians that are “all the same” at local, state and federal levels already. Do they really want yet another set of elections, with all the politicking and cost that goes with them? Please no!
This is a really good point and not written about enough. There are ways of legislating the triggers for government dismissal etc. we don’t actually need someone to embody this. Good article in New Matilda a while back about it.
The Separation of Powers is not well understood. An informative exercise is to look through the list on Wikipedia and see which countries have a separate head of state to the head of government, and which states have them combined. There is a stark difference in which ones are stable, liberal, and prosperous countries and which aren’t.
The referendum failed because the PM worded it as my way or the highway – parliament will choose the Head of State. Bound to fail.
Yet it’s the best option. Howard deliberately fostered mistrust in the model. Had it been explained properly a different result may have been the outcome
It wasn’t just the explanation, it was the models themselves. A choice between bad or worse. The Lying Rodent successfully poisoned the well.
The Queen, via her secretary, effectively told Kerr he had reserve powers and in context he could and arguably should exercise them. A story the mainstream media cannot wrap their little heads around. And you cannot simply legislate the possibility of the GG exercising these powers in future, you’d need to change the constitution / hope future GGs and King or Queen accept they do not have these powers. Blind hope, as usual.
But did she? Or was it a frolic entirely of Charteris’ own doing? I suspect the later. If you read the actual letters (available via the Australian Archives website) it is immediately apparent that a) Charteris had zero knowledge of how the Australian Constitution works (and I’ll bet you London to a brick the Queen did), indeed Charteris says so himself in as many words, and b) the statements appear to be his alone, not something relayed from HM.
Amounts to the same thing.