Even though I enjoy Australians and international politics, I have to admit that I wasn’t really paying attention back in September when Australia’s prime minister Tony Abbott – a douchebag of the highest order, many believed – was ousted. Malcolm Turnbull became Australia’s newest prime minister, and Turnbull has a long history as a small-R republican. As in, he wants Australia to cut its ties with the British monarchy and become a republic. Which might be why Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall set out for a grand tour of New Zealand and Australia this week. Their first stop was New Zealand, and it seems like the Kiwis are fine with the monarchy (for now). But Australia is another story altogether. Charles and Camilla will arrive in Australia on Sunday, and they’re basically flying into an anti-monarchist sh-tstorm.
The Daily Beast had a lengthy write-up about how Prime Minister Turnbull doesn’t have any patience for any of this royal family bollocks – go here to read. Apparently, one of Tony Abbott’s many disasters involved an executive decision to give Prince Phillip a knighthood, just for the hell of it, because apparently the Queen told someone that Phillip fancied getting an honor from the Aussies. Abbott reintroduced knighthoods without any consultation back in March 2014, a decision that was met with widespread derision within Australia. And earlier this week, Turnbull did away with the knighthoods altogether, saying: “Knights and dames are titles that are anachronistic, out of date and not appropriate, in 2015.”
While the future of the British monarchy may be secure in New Zealand, on Sunday Charles and Camilla will fly to Australia, and land in the midst of another storm. This one is a political and constitutional storm, and one that threatens to see Australia ditch Queen Elizabeth as head of state. Much, therefore, depends on Charles being able to charm the populace of Australia on this tour. Prepare for some major publicity stunts to showcase Charles’s chummy side.
Although Malcolm Turnbull said after his inauguration that there were “much more immediate issues facing me and the government than the republic”, there are many who believe Turnbull’s abolishment of Knights and Dames this week marks the beginning of a new assault on the status of the Monarch in Australia.
Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-Monarchy organization Republic, told The Daily Beast, “The monarch has only survived this long as head of state in Australia because for the last 11 years they have had monarchist Prime Ministers. Abbott will be the last time Australia has a monarchist Prime Minister. The scene is set for something to happen. There is an election coming up next year, and it is very possible that Turnbull will make a referendum in the next term part of his manifesto. Smith says that there is an increasing appetite to make the change now rather than waiting for the Queen to die and doing it then. It might make more sense—and be less ghoulish—to make a move in advance of her death, he says.
“The Queen will be 90 next year and that is starting to focus people’s minds that the time is coming.”
If Australia goes, it seems inevitable that a number of other realms—Jamaica and Barbados would be hot favorites—would also dump the Crown as head of state. The Australians are about as keen on the prospect of King Charles III as everyone else in the world who uses money with the Queen’s head on it. Charles will no doubt be aware that one wrong move or ill-thought word in the next 12 days could accelerate events dramatically.
While I’m something of an apologist for the Prince of Wales, I do think that it was probably a mistake to send him to Australia during this tricky and politically sensitive moment? Charles is an acquired taste, you know? I feel like most people don’t really “get” Charles and his presence in Australia will likely do more harm than good. Then again, I doubt the Cambridges would have gotten a better reception. They are – despite Her Majesty’s best efforts – diplomatic lightweights incapable of taking on sensitive issues or anything that might require a delicate touch or a little finesse. Diana would have been more than capable, of course. Maybe Harry would have done some good if he had been sent. But it seems more than possible that in a year’s time, Australia will not be part of the commonwealth. Poor King Charles!
Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.
I, for the life of me, don’t understand why anyone would ever want their country to be a monarchy, even on paper. It’s a slap in the face to people who actually work for a living ( because what royals do, no matter how engaged, is hardly work). I feel the same about noble titles. One of the good things that came out of communism was that we have no lords or ladies here.
And please don’t say they bring tourists because there are countries which are doing just fine in tourism without being monarchies.
Having said that, out of all the Brits, I like Charles and Camilla best.
As an Australian it has no impact on my life whatsoever. I would be interested to see how our government would change if we became a republic, but I don’t care either way.
See, this is how I always explain views on the monarchy here in the UK itself, but I think many Americans have such a gut aversion to monarchy (fine to observe them but the idea of having one is anathema) they don’t always get it. So they get excited when gossip indicates another country might be getting its republican knickers in a twist!
I’d say here in the UK, you have about 15-20% die-hard republicans who would love to change the system and about the same number of die-hard royalists who would lay down in front of traffic if someone said they were taking Her Maj away.
The vast majority of people may have vague leanings one way or the other, but really can’t be bothered with a load of upheaval to replace one sort of constitutional flummery with another sort. It has no impact on government policy, so why go to the effort of changing it?
Our aversion to the British monarchy hasn’t changed in 300 years… it’s in our DNA, Sixer. It what makes us ‘Muricans, y’know!
I find the BRF an amusing thing to observe, but would hate it if my taxpayer pounds were supporting the lazyassed ones of the family.
Exactly, Nutballs. It’s music to my ears, of course, but then I’m one of the minority of die-hard republicans hereabouts.
But, but, but – it does blind you to stuff, too. To whit: the BRF have little-to-no constitutional influence or power – certainly less influence and power than large US/UK corporations have over government; on a national scale, the cost is negligible – even at the highest estimates, the BRF costs 0.03% of the national budget. The UK spends less both in cash terms and as a proportion of budget on the offices of the Prime Minister AND the BRF combined than the US does on the office of POTUS (by that I mean cars and planes and residences and security, not political costs).
When you look at it like that, you can see why there’s so little interest in getting rid. It would have little to no benefit on the actual lives lived by most of the population.
I am sort of curious about the math around that Sixer. The US supports POTUS and POTUS’s family alone.
As far as I can see the UK supports in some form or other: The PM and his family, the Queen, her four children, two oldest grandsons and their families, numerous cousins and their households.
This expense is justified in the form of having them do “royal work” which is nothing but some form of charity fund-raising, which private individuals do anyway and therefore can hardly be called a non-substitutable service. Therefore I don’t buy that they bring anything to the economy that the market would not create if they were to be gotten rid of.
How does the expense paid for POTUS = expense paid for PM and 10 Downing Street, Queen, her absolutely oppulent lifestyle, four children, two grandsons, numerous cousins? If they were to be kicked out of KP, BP etc., if the Duchies were seized you don’t actually think that it would be a net gain to the UK?
To add to that: I think that there is something inherently repulsive to Americans to say that one person or a few people are by birth superior to others. The titles, the bowing etc. are just not something that Americans can justify in a moral sense, I think. It is simply against the core of our culture.
Well, now that you put that way, perhaps keeping them for the humour they provide is decent return on investment.
That “u” was an accident, by the way.
ETA: Maia, I agree. It’s inherent from our beginnings and being viewed as the Promised Land where if you work hard, you can forge your own path to success. Having aristocratic bloodlines aren’t needed to make something of oneself.
Maia
a) yes, the “repulsive” thing is precisely what I meant in my first comment. I share it, but I am also aware that the repulsion blinds me/you to the actual practicalities of the matter.
b) What you, I , or anyone else thinks about the value of the work or the number or choice of people doing it is irrelevant to my point. In the US, the First Lady role is probably the equivalent of the BRF charidee malarkeys.
My point is that public funding for the *constitutional* aspects of head of government plus head of state is smaller both by proportion and amount in the UK than it is in the US. (Presumably, Hummers, black-sunglass-wearing security and Air Force 1 are more expensive than RPOs and palaces and gilded coaches!)
It’s a simple point about cost. Nothing to do with principle. You’re arguing points I didn’t make – even though they are points, as a republican, I largely agree with.
BTW as a rough estimate: POTUS $1.5bn. BRF £300m (that’s taking the republicans’ estimate, not the Sovereign Grant so is as high as possible), PM £50m. £350m is $525m.
I feel, in the interests of my beloved republican cause, I should also do some comparisons with other countries and their heads of state. Doesn’t work with the US as it combines head of state and head of government. But it does with:
Denmark (monarchy): £13m
Netherlands (monarchy) £40m
Germany (republic) £26m
Ireland (republic) £2m
Suddenly, £300m looks EXTORTIONATE! Playing devil’s advocate only works when you compare with the ludicrous sums the US spends on the office of POTUS!
QUEEN MAXIMA is worth 40 mill, in any currency.
When it comes to hats, she knows how to BRING IT.
I realise that I may be too late to joinin the conversation, but fwiw, this whole thread makes for such interesting reading. 😃
Also fwiw, I did think that the admittedly small sample of Americans I’ve met did seem kinda obsessed with the British monarchy. I do think there’s a bit of a dichotomy in America – loving their freedom vs interest in the British Royal Family. I thought there was a disproportionate number of Will & Kate fans, though that could have been coincidence.
@Lurker…I can’t speak for all Americans, obviously, but I don’t think there is much interest in Will and Kate here. Kate doesn’t have the style, glamour or charisma of Diana, who was followed here much like we would a popular movie star. I remember where I was when I heard that she had died, even though I was pretty young.
Perhaps there was a blip of interest in Will / Kate when the babies were born, because who doesn’t love a new baby? And the wedding of course, because who doesn’t love an opulent wedding? Other than that, I am indifferent to them.
ETA:
Now, Harry, on the other hand, is *very* interesting. I wouldn’t mind supporting him. 😉
Shannon, yeah, you’re probably right on the money there. Obsessed is way too strong a word to use; in reality, it probably is more like casual interest.
In addition to the First Lady, the US VP does a lot of the ribbon-cutting, ceremonial role taken on by the monarch in constitutional monarchies and the president in republics like Germany. And as much as $1.5 billion is an insane figure for POTUS, I can’t help but think that (unfortunately) security bills have increased exponentially since Obama became President. He has, unfortunately, many more threats against him than other presidents did.
+1 Sixer for the use of the phrase “constitutional flummery”
To add more data to the discussion ie. population
Spain (monarchy)
£7.5 million (no idea if that is accurate), 46.7 million people
Denmark (monarchy)
£13m, 5.6 million people
Netherlands (monarchy)
£40m, 16.8 million people
Germany (republic)
£26m, 80.6 million people
Ireland (republic)
£2m, 4.5 million people
Sixer and Co–that 1.5 bil figure is bs, sourced from a single book and publicized by the Daily Fail. The author developed his total by including, for example, the entire budget of the Executive branch: he included EOPOTUS offices such the National Security Council, and operation of cabinet level offices such as the Office of Homeland Security.
His budget estimates include statements such as that the President’s dog walker is ‘supposedly’ paid over 100,000 per year, and ‘there’s nothing that keeps the President from paying his Chief of Staff 5,000,000 mil per year’. No, nothing other than public outrage.
To add to my comment, I think the salaries of some 3000 or more people are included in that total. The BRF total doesn’t actually include offices and personnel involved in running the government, right?
TB
I deliberately used the higher estimate because that’s what I used for the BRF and the PM (which does include all the non-political staff, and some silly exaggerations, yes). But if you want to find the official figures, equally massaged but downwards instead, since, as you rightly point out, official figures do their best to avoid public outrage, that would be fine, too. We’d just use the official £60m figure for the BRF. Either way, the cost proportion would be the same.
I’m not making a value judgement: I’m simply pointing out that the US spends more on the upkeep of the two great offices of state than does the UK, regardless of the system of government used.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that I feel absolutely the same way. I don’t care who is on the throne, or who will be inheriting the throne. I don’t care if they are likeable or not. I don’t see any need for monarchy, any advantage or rational reason why we shouldn’t cut those ties for ever.
We don’t even get the benefit of being able to claim British citizenship – my husband’s family (or part of) originally came from England. When I got offered a job in Europe we discussed moving but he would not have been able to work. We looked into applying for British citizenship for him, and it was no go. So – part (yes, small) of my tax dollars go towards supporting the monarchy. But what we get out of it is zip.
I actually do like Charles. I think HM and her jewels are smashing. But I have zero desire to support this system. If the brits are happy with it, that is entirely up to them, but I would dearly love it if Canada cut the monarchy ties off.
Ditto. And I wonder if canada would get more serious about refining its political system, hammering out Constitutional questions etc if it didn’t have the GG there as a sort of, “oh, let’s ask someone else” fallback. Didn’t work out with Harper’s two prorogations.
GG=Governor General, like a rep for the Queen but appointed by the PM. Usually ceremonial but can hold way too much power in a pinch, especially for an appointed not elected official.
At least that is my take. Some think it’s a check on the politicians.
ITA! When my grandparents arrived to my country they were happy to settle in a Republic.
I’ve never understood the concept of Monarchy in the 21st century. France got rid of their monarchs in the most gruesome way and they still receive a lot of tourism. You only need the castles and palaces to make money, not the actual institution.
Right with you until the last sentence Franca!
Communism has never brought any good to anyone except for the ruling figures. The way they slaughtered whole families of aristocrats,the rapes and mass murders of children/heirs were equal to the horror of the holocaust. Communists unleashed on a mission to erase from the face of earth those people. I don’t understand how any normal person could find anything positive in this. Where I come from, we don’t have titles any more but those families’ last names clearly show who was who in the past and no one minds it. And why would we? They work like us. I am proud that my country destroyed the system but didn’t resort to the horrors of civil war and genocide to do it.
Communism didn’t work the same way in every part of the world. Communism in The Soviet was different to cummunism in Yugoslavia or China or Cuba.
Yeah, rape wasn’t really a major feature of Chinese communism. I think Communism appealed in China because it was a rebalancing of power–power invested in people–from the monarchy/military rule. And with such a massive peasant population, you’d be hard pressed to sustain a democracy–the foundations just weren’t there.
Always kinda interesting to see the whimsy regarding where coUntries ended up and why. Watch the freaking Speech from the Throne though–nothing could be more antiquated.
Also, that 1.5 bn$ for POTUS mentioned above…not sure that isn’t a bit inflated but do recall the office of the US president has peciliar demands. We assassinate our presidents; and the prez is always the most important person in the room (even when he’s visiting countries that dislike him).
Mariah
We had this discussion on here a few weeks back, and many European commenters who had lived in Eastern European communist countries before the Iron Curtain fell described their lives in positive ways. They also said that the fall of communism had brought benefits, but also problems they had not had before.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html
There’s a very detailed article about life in Hungary during the communist years. You should read it.
Greenieweenie
POTUS could be adequately protected for a tiny proportion of the cost. I think it’s much more about projection of power than anything else.
POTUS gets paid 400,000 a year to do his job. Michelle gets paid nothing.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/5-presidential-perks.htm
It is unfortunate that so many of presidents have been targets over the last several decades. How do you think that they could be better protected for less, or more interesting, what personal power does the president project with the 1.5b monies spent (as noted above)? Certainly he doesn’t wear jewels! Nor does he have a personal fortune of $500 million – or estates like the Duchy to provide endless pleasure. The British royals have the real perks for life!
@Sixer, unfortunately, President Obama gets exponentially more threats against him than any president before him. He could not be adequately protected for a fraction of the cost: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/secret-service-online-threat-president/399179/
Wolfie
How does the flummery surrounding the POTUS-ship act as a projection of power? Seriously?! Only an American could say that! Bless you, my lovely.
I’ll just give you one example of dozens upon dozens: how many cars in the Presidential motorcade? 30? 40? You seriously imagine you can’t protect one man with fewer than an armoured division of vehicles and a regiment of men? It’s not as though heads of state and/or government aren’t assassination targets (or have been assassinated) in other countries. For example, the IRA came within a whisker of assassinating Margaret Thatcher. It’s the same everywhere, you know. American presidents aren’t in some kind of unique/exceptional danger.
BTW: my points are about relative COSTS. Nothing to do with the system of government. The simple costs of the great offices of state. Presidents may be temporary and royals may have jobs for life but that’s a different point and discussion altogether. The point here is that there is always an extant President, whose office costs money.
Sixer, I was interested in what you thought was our pres’s flummery. I don’t see it in the same way that someone overseas might. I noticed while I lived overseas that even the news is interpreted differently in different countries. I have no idea why his motorcade is so long, although it might be interesting to find out if it is to look important: we were told in America that he needed “the beast”, and we simply believe that is is for protection as briefed, not for flummery. I’m sure all World leaders have some flummery – I wish that you’d given me some of your dozens of ideas, because when you grow up with it, it can be invisible to you. Is it very different in character than other world leaders? It is different than jewels, medals, estates, private wealth and luxury vacations. I don’t mind criticism over what he does, I am just interested in how Americans project – and perhaps a good laugh!
What I found to be the president’s greatest expense compared to the Queen is his staff – his business entails a great deal more than keeping a Castle tidy, arranging appointment books, and managing PR. Because the Queen is a sitting ornamental, and the president has a paying job, it is almost like comparing apples and oranges, do you agree? When the Fail tells the Brit’s that their Queen only cost $300mil compared to our Pres’s 1.5 bil – they are being purposefully misleading in my opinion.
I’m sorry if my question felt argumentative – I’m merely being curious – “my lovely” is what the wicked witch said to Dorothy…(heart freeze!)
Sixer – for both of us I did some reading on the make-up of the pres’s motorcade. It consists of local police, secret service, counter assault teams, bomb squads, staff personnel, ambulance, press vans and limo decoys as well as SUV’s with guns capable of spitting out 6,000 rounds per minute. Sound paranoid? – some cities even have dummy motorcades. The size and make-up depend on the occasion, trip length and potential risks – 10-40 vehicles, volunteers and hired drivers. In my opinion, this is not flummery, but money well-spent!
Wolfie
I’m going to sign out now – not because I don’t want to carry on, but because this an old thread, because we’ll probably end up going round in circles, and because I have two funding grants to apply for for charities I volunteer for (community defibrillator and loop hearing system for the deaf for the village hall!). Is grant funding as full of ENDLESS paperwork stateside as it is here? I’ve got 50 pages and 80 pages. SIGH.
But briefly –
My mum’s family is Welsh and ‘my lovely’ is just the Welsh way of saying darling. I never take personal offence and you weren’t offensive anyway.
I find it an uphill struggle whenever I say anything that asks Americans to step outside of themselves and see themselves, or aspects of their country, as others see them rather than the way they see them themselves, so I thank you for at least giving it a go!
See you on the next thread!
“For at least giving it a go” – sorry to disappoint! – “just an uphill struggle for an American”, I suppose, and nothing personal. (?)
Best wishes on your charities which are of special importance.
Go, Australia! Bin us! I would!
Mind you, presumably Turnbull has more pressing issues to deal with if he’s trying to unpick everything Abbott did that he didn’t like, which would have been just about everything.
I watched Julia Gillard’s famous misogyny rant at Abbott again just the other day. That speech is a thing of beauty.
Quite the take down. I love that he had to sit there and listen to it.
She had some torrid times when she was PM, but sitting here on the other side of the world, I’ll always love her for that speech.
Sixer – just want to say that I always appreciate your comments. You put things in perspective for me, today in particular comparing royal houses. I love that you know the political balancing act in Britain and the Commonwealth, and can inform us.
I don’t know what ” BRF charidee malarkees” are – but I believe that First Ladies have a great deal of influence in US culture. Nancy Reagan’s, “Just Say No!” to drugs caused many, many structural problems for us. Our overcrowded prisons are directly attributable to her.
Aww, thanks, wolfie.
By charidee malarkeys, I just really mean “good works”.
I think I’ve said it before, but the BRF has a two-fold role: firstly, all the constitutional flummery that comes with a head of state role in any country; secondly “good works” – which can be charity, or public awareness of health or social issues, that kind of thing. And the second part is what the First Lady role is, right? But in the UK, the idea is that that role is souped up, because there’s a whole family and an institution to do it, not just one person.
But of course, there’s always a tension between what various groups think are acceptable choices in the good works role, and whether or not the BRF are performing to the expected standard or not. And that the entire thing is not formalised makes more tension. That’s why I think you can draw a parallel with the First Lady role – that’s not formalised either, is it? So the American public can quite happily pass judgement and argue over whether a particular First Lady is pulling her weight or not or sticking to the right areas or not.
Sixer… I love that you love that speech as much as I do. Gives me goosebumps every time. Given what’s going on with Trump I’m Not sure who is further behind in the equality race – the US or Australia.
Sixer, In all my years, I’ve never heard an argument over whether any first lady performance is up to any standard whatsoever. We all expect, that a person in such a place of influence, will do good – but actually, the first family is off-limits for the press, as it is felt that it would be a distraction for our president to be fending for his family while in office. This year a woman was fired for dissing his children publically. It’s just not politically correct and doesn’t happen.
As an Australian, I can assure you it will be exactly the same in Australia as it was in NZ. Plenty of people are still ok about being part of the monarchy. And those that are for a republic aren’t overly aggressive about it.
Plenty of people will turn out to see Charles and Camilla. It won’t be on the same scale as the younger royals but there will be plenty out and about.
And thousands turned out for the Cambridges and for Harry. They are still very popular here.
People went quite crazy when Charles and Camilla were here a couple of years ago. They went to the Melbourne Cup and people went nuts for them!
Why are they popular? – it can’t be their personalities. Is it their obscene wealth and status?
Australians (the first settlers from the UK) have a romanticised view of old England and consider it as their motherland. They believe they are (and want to remain) an Anglo-Saxon population. They take enormous pride in their connection to Britain (even if some of their ancestors were thrown out of there as convicts). Abbott is a perfect example. The reality is that Australia is fast moving towards becoming predominantly Asian. Many fear a “soft” invasion by China since the Australian economy is so heavily dependent on China…
Nah – Australia will be in the commonwealth for years to come. . . Do Americans assume we feel strongly about ditching the monarchy because most people here don’t care either way. Charles will get the reception he always does, so it’s a nothing story.
My thoughts exactly!!! I’m bemused that people think we’re angry and going to be frosty. As you said very few people care one way or the other with the monarchy and people always welcome visitors like the royals.
We sound like a nasty bunch otherwise 🙂
@Lozface – Ausssies and Kiwis are the most egalitarian, gracious and friendly people I have ever met. So I do not think for one second that the Aussies would be anything but extremely kind, respectful and hospitable to C & C.
About 5 years after I finished university I was fed up with my career and love life so I quit my job and bought a round-the-world airline ticket. I traveled as a single female for about a year which included a few months in Oz and NZ and the residents of both countries were fabulous.
Gosh, shucks, MinnFinn. We love you too.
MinnFinn – what an ripe education! – so proud of you for developing yourself in this way.
As an American, I can just say that I never thought about it, and think it’s entirely up to you. If you want a monarchy, have one. If you don’t, don’t. We don’t care.
Speaking for all Americans there, GN?
Slight overeaction in this article. IF we became a republic, we would still stay in the commonwealth, there are many fomer colonies now republics happily enjoying all the commonwealth brings. Also, there is no way Turnbull will be getting a republic through in under 2 years….just not possible. I live in Canberra and work in the parliamentary triangle, so i get the good gossip, and I know how slowly the cogs turn.
BTW I am of the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it ” persuation, the Queen works well and is hands off, if the Oz public had a popular vote for head of state, we would end up with Michael Clarke and the luverly Kyly with two Y’s in charge, or others of their ilk. No thanks.
The article that Kaiser quoted said we’ve had no republican PM in 10 years. Was Julia really a monarchist? I find that hard to believe.
She was a ‘This issue isn’t on my agenda’-ist. I don’t think she really cares either way, whereas Abbott was very much a monarchist and Turnbull is still basically the leader of the republican movement.
Silly buggers! Send a cuppa Harry over!
Yes, Liberty. If the BRIT Royals have a crisis they should just serve up some delicious Ginger Prince. Does anyone else in that family matter?
Wow, not an easy trip. Kind of feel sorry for both of them. Not that I love them or monarchy, I just prefer them to WK.
Don’t worry! It’s not like that at all in Australia. I’m not sure where this idea comes from. It’s a massive overreaction.
They’re always made to feel very welcome and plenty of people will be out and about to greet them
BRF seem to want to keep Australia in the fold. Last year, they got Kate / Wills visiting. Harry was there in April or May this year and now Charles / Camilla have turned up. 3 visits from royals that are the direct line in an 18 month period?? They want to keep Australia.
I was thinking of how often they seem to be heading there. I’m surprised Australians aren’t tired of paying for so many visits so close together.
Don’t forget…they also got George!
As an American, I could give a toss about a monarchy after the Queen. The Queen is just such an historical figure now so I think when she is gone, it would be a great time to close the curtain. But as a yank, I’m glad for the monarchy of the past throughout Europe bc of the castles, history and to see such old stuff is amazing as an American we don’t have anything close to that to see.
There are 26,000 castles in Germany. I lived in Ansbach, (like Florc) for a period of years. Don’t need royalty for seeing centuries of robber barons. I agree however, that royalty usually has the biggest and best via taxation of the commoners.
All I have to say is Camilla looks great.
I really like her scarf
I’m an Aussie and have to agree with people who have said that this article seems like an overreaction.
I do believe that this site is anti.
I agree – I was reading the article thinking that its doesn’t accurately represent the sentiments here in Aus at all. I think most of us would be angry if the government decided to focus on becoming a republic instead of the more pressing economic and social problems we have. Its a non issue at present.
I know! I just saw a story on the today show: ‘Australia’s love affair with the Royals’!
No frosty reception mentioned.
Canada here. Suspect even slower to let go…those Loyalist sentiments seem to run deep (except where they don’t). New PM still first swore loyalty to Queen second to uphold duty to Canada.
Swearing loyalty to the queen instead of country brings up all those Middle Age films to mind.
I doubt they will oust Queen Elizabeth but will probably go for it after she passes. And I don’t even think that has anything to do with who Charles is himself-its just out of respect for HM.
Camilla looks like she was on the street selling violets and talking to herself and they grabbed her, threw a scarf around her and took a picture of her with Charles.
So she’s recovered from her jetlag? The Telegraph wrote her up as the first British Royal to cancel her first engagement in NZ due to jetlag. And perhaps they arrived separately this time since Camilla has been known from previous tours with Charles, to arrive from spa treatments in other countries.
I think they both looked fine. Those photos were taken in the middle of a funny incident involving a determined bee.
I think they look marvellous. It is so refreshing to see a couple with chemistry and a sense of humour as well as gravitas and who also dress well (especially Charles). The photos almost make me smile, instead of feeling my usual crabby self at the sight of a couple of vacant wastes of space.
Jamaica and Barbados have a high potential to dump the monarchy? Oh yes, I can see the excuses coming out for why W&K have to go on an official Caribbean tour next Spring…
Thanks Jason, I mean the Daily Beast for putting that out there.
Such trickery would not work here in the US. We ask for a great deal more in our designation of what freedom of the press entails, and folks would be all over this artful, evasive, shifty strategy. It seems as though Britain has a puppetmaster. (Jason, the American?)
Wolfie
This comment made me laugh because I’m currently arguing the toss – cos, if you haven’t noticed, I do love to argue the toss! – elsewhere about freedom of the press comparisons between the UK and the US. It’s in response to a Glenn Greenwald proposition that the UK’s press provides a better demonstration of the Chomsky Propaganda Model than the US’s press (although he is not at all keen on the US press performance either). Literally ALL the Americans in that discussion are arguing that the US press is far worse and far less free, and literally ALL the Brits are arguing that the UK press is far worse and far less free, FWIW, I’m arguing that they are pretty much the same: concentration of ownership and uncritical presentation of the dominant ideology is equal in both countries.
Perhaps it’s more that everyone just hates the press and their own press the most of all?!
At least I make you laugh, Sixer! I believe that it is the competing ideologies in the US that make it interesting – and education the key to freedom.
It’s PR that is the bugaboo I’m talking about here.
Hmmmm not so sure about the monarchist prime ministers for the last 11 years. John Howard was a monarchist, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are both known Republicans. Julia went to the Cambridges wedding and was seen chatting to TQ at the reception quite amicably. Its only been Tony Abbott who is a rabid monarchist of the past 11 years. His grovelling to the Cambridges on their visit was embarrassing.
The only heckling Charles will get and even that will be good natured, will be over his rugby comments to the Kiwis. Not that he had much choice there either arriving the same day as then All Blacks, carrying Billy with them.
The solution to the republican issue here is easy. Get Harry to marry one of us:D
By the way this is kind of funny , ambos no longer ask who is the prime minister when doing consciousness tests on patients. Seems we can’t keep up :-/
Tony Abbott “a douchebag of the highest order”? To put it mildly.
To think that man was ever our Prime Minister is horrifying. It certainly shows the failings of the Westminster system: firstly to have him end up as leader of the Liberal party (which had swing madly to the right under John Howard) and then end up as PM by default, simply because people were pissed off with the other party. Result: we end up with a right-wing nut-job who doesn’t represent 95% of the population.
Oh Kaiser, we Aussies know Prince Charles quite well, you don’t need to worry about the acquired taste nature of him, he’s been here many many many times. And just because we have a new silver fox republican prime minister doesn’t mean the reception for the prince will be frosty.
Nah, mate. Australians just don’t give that much of a s#%t about the republic question. It’s much more like ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. We had a referendum about it in ’99 that was soundly defeated. The royals don’t affect our day to day, and we can’t seem to get interested enough to come up with a model of how a republic of Australia would be governed. I think for most people the royals are like uber celebrities, so we like having them visit.
And quite frankly, Malcolm Turnbull would infinitely prefer to be PM of an Australia with our current system, than lose his job pushing for a republic.
(Which is probably what would happen, because his side of politics is more likely to be monarchists.)
TL.DR The Daily Beast has very little clue about Australians or our politics.
I think we (Australians) will eventually become a republic. We are more part of Asia than anywhere else. With more and more migrants from foreign countries, who have no ties to England. I think people wonder what is the point of having them?
kaiser, i say this every time i read these articles. we aussies dont hate the royals. we generally dont care enough about a republic to become a republic. the royals have very little impact on our government but we do enjoy them. this time next year we will still be a part of the commonwealth. Turnbull may want to drop the monarchy but he also wants to remain PM as long as possible. the best way to achieve that is to leave things as the are. plus he has bigger fish to fry. Abbott made a huge mess in his time as PM. the daily beast is a US site i believe so what they know about the daily life here on Oz is beyond me.