Opposing Barry Everingham

A letter to the editor of The Age published today opposing yesterday's attack on our Royal Family:

"Barry Everingham claims ('It's time for a little stately act of our own', Comment, 19/11) that 'the respect given the Queen' may not be inherited by Prince Charles upon his assumption of the supreme royal authority. This is arguable. Impressive though Her Majesty has been in many ways, she could never have written a book as profound as Harmony, Prince Charles's detailed appeal to humanity to live in a sustainable manner.

"However, the importance of the Crown is in its role as an institution, one which offers dignity, stability and security to our Commonwealth. The quality of a particular monarch is of less significance, so long as the honour and effectiveness of the institution is maintained."

Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Victoria

Same old same old

It is really not worth mentioning, but The Age used today's arrival day of the Queen and Prince Philip to publish fiercely republican articles.

Of course they dug up the inevitable Barry Everingham "a veteran commentator on royalty" - as you would expect. He recycled his articles from previous royal occasions. No need to read that opinion piece. There's nothing new in it.

Another article was written by Glenn Patmore, "a senior lecturer in law at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne", who laments recent opinion polls showing that the Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of the Monarchy (55 : 34).

"Has Australia become a royalist nation? Politicians are apparently enamoured by the aura of monarchy. They are keen to be photographed with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip and the younger royals. To much fanfare, Her Majesty will be opening Melbourne's brand new children's hospital and officiating at other national events this week during what will most likely be her last visit to Australia. The tenor of the Republican debate has slowly changed too."

Poor old republicans, they will never understand "the magic of Monarchy".

It is worrying, that "a senior lecturer in law" refers to the rightly forgotten "2020 Summit":

"And the 999 members of the Labor government's 2020 summit in 2007, declared the republic as a key issue for constitutional reform."

As mentioned before, their 99.9 per cent majority on the April summit was achieved, because the so-called delegates were not delegated by anyone, but handpicked by the organisers. A democratic convention would be something completely different and would not have seen anything else but a 99.9% soviet style result for "a" republic, of which Glenn Patmore seems to be so proud of.

More than ten million hits

Any website with more than 10 Million hits can only be called a success. In the year to 12th May Australians for Constitutional Monarchy’s website achieved 10,061.101 hits.

Though it is not the only Australian Monarchist website, it is certainly the most popular and the most influential.

Republican Australians hate it with fury: “David Flint clutches at every royal straw he can find”, remarked his most passionate enemy Barry Everingham.

And David Donovan, media director of the Australian Republican Movement, complained: "The problem republicans face is that monarchists like David Flint are happy to exaggerate, distort and sometimes even deceive to argue their case. Their strategy is to try to create a myth that will plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed."

David Flint, the national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, is above all a very active writer and publisher. His opinion pieces appear daily and more often than not, he writes two or three comments. Considering that about one quarter of ACM website's visitors come from overseas explains other monarchies (i.e. Thailand) or Monarchs in exile, King Constantine II of the Hellenes.

While the Murdoch and Fairfax media empires still advocate a republican ideology and have to come to terms with falling influence, the Monarchist websites grow more popular by the day. Recent opinion polls indicated a drop in republican sympathies. This is certainly not due to an unbiased reporting in the mass media, but only because the internet offers Monarchists to publish their arguments.

Well done, David. Keep on the fight!

Republicans pin their hopes on the law of succession
When The Age yesterday published Margaret Fitzherbert’s serious and non-polemic thoughts on an overhaul of the succession laws to the British throne, nasty comments could be expected. And indeed, among of the 21 comments online there were the usual stupid remarks(“I'm not sure why we're even wasting time thinking about the succession to the British throne, when we're set to become a republic..."). However, the printed edition today contained only one letter to the editor. It came from the usual suspect: Barry Everingham, Malvern. “This is offensive in egalitarian Australia.” And so on and so on ...

That’s the same man, who on 3rd December 2007 published a Republican call to arms, which, much to his chagrin, was equally ignored as were his other attacks on the Australian Monarchy, for which he usually chooses Murdoch’s tabloid papers.

When a republican tries to come to the rescue of another republican

After Guy Rundle used last week's Sunday Age to spread gossip and wishful thinking concerning “a” Australian republic, this Sunday’s edition published a letter to the editor written by Barry Everingham – according to The Age "a Melbourne commentator and a republican".

While it is always heart warming to see that the good old-fashioned solidarity still works for republicans, what Barry Everingham wrote, is simply wrong.

Here is his letter and I put my comments in brackets:

"GUY Rundle hit the nail on the head — the yawning indifference to the royals both here and in England is an indication that things are moving, slowly but surely. [When I find “yawning indifference", then it is one for “a” republic, as John Warhurst, himself a leading Australian republican, admitted.]

"A few weeks ago, we got a lesson from Princess Anne, no less, as to how royal visits, if they do occur [they only occur, when the Australian government sends out an invitation, something our arch-republican politicians very rarely do, but that is not the fault of our Royal Family, as Barry Everingham must know], need to be conducted.

"Representing her mum, our head of state — who already has eight representatives here, but that's a story for another day [may we remind Mr. Everingham that some of Her Majesty’s representatives in Australia are actually not following their Oath of Allegiance and work against the symbol they should well and truly represent?] — Anne flew in, went to Government House, freshened up, showed up at the Day of Mourning service, made a great speech [at least, he admits that it was “a great speech”], mingled with the volunteers and firefighters and then took off to the ravaged areas and, throwing protocol to the wind, gave succour to the suffering and next day was on a plane home. [So what? Did not the Australian Governor-General and the Australian Prime Minister fly in as well? None of them stayed even a whole day and they did not take up residence in a tent or caravan in Marysville.]

"The days of waving kids and blue-rinsed grannies getting all excited when an ethnic German foreigner pops in [that racist remark is unworthy for any Melbourne commentator and even for a republican. Should we follow Barry Everingham’s definition for a family that settled in Britain in 1714 still to be considered “an ethnic German foreign”, then less than one percent of the people of Australia could be considered anything else then “foreign ethnics”. A detailed refusal of this outrageous remark can be found here] are thankfully over for ever [how does he know? Her Majesty’s last visit does not prove his wishful think being more than just that: Republican wishful thinking.]

"Even the most rabid monarchists would admit royal tours today just don't take place. [Yes, but because the pollies don’t like the fact that the attention of the public turns away from them towards the Royal Family, therefore they do not send out invitations.] The Poms themselves aren't too enamoured by the shenanigans of the younger royals either. [How does he know? Did the most reliable source for royal news, Guy Rundle, tell him that? To how many British did he speak or is he relying on the Murdoch media, which very often appear to be the main source for Everingham's articles.]

"Rundle didn't find any interest in the London unveiling of the Queen Mum's statue and here we couldn't have cared less. [I could not find any proof for Guy Rundle’s statement. However, I saw photos of the unveiling of the Queen Mother’s statue. One, which is published here, shows the Earl and the Countess of Wessex . Take a look at the media mob in the background. Photographers galore, I’d say. The unveiling was reported all over the world - excluding Australia, I might add, but we know the reason why - and when I set a link to the German political magazine Focus, then despite knowing how Barry Everingham could find this to be a justification for his above mentioned racist remark.] "It is a case of bring on the republic as soon as possible." [The conclusion is complete nonsense and even Barry Everingham himself cannot wish Australia becoming a politicians’ republic. What else would this Melbourne commentator and republican write on, if not on our Royal Family? Or have you read anything else from him?]

[Her Majesty obviously enjoyed the unveiling of a statue commemorating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, to repeat her official title, since Guy Rundle keeps insisting, that she was called Queen Mary, something even Barry Everingham could not support. There is hope, after all, that the truth may prevail.]

What do Australian Republicans stand for?

Barry Everingham never disappoints you. In recent weeks I missed his republican propaganda articles, but there he was again, as I expected: On Australia Day. “Barry Everingham is a Melbourne commentator and a republican” as he was introduced with the common phrase by The Age for his usual republican opinion pieces. “That a monarch still rules us is embarrassing for a modern nation. … The time has come for Australians to look seriously at our constitutional arrangements and change them to bring us into the 21st century.” Never mind that the republican system also dates back more than 2,000 years to the Roman era, a well functioning monarchical system is as adequate for the 21st century, which began eight years ago, as it has been the centuries before.

He also repeats an opinion poll that was paid for by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and had achieved the results that pleased the orderer: “Late last year a poll of 2000 people found 50 per cent supported making Australia a republic while 28 per cent were opposed. Eighty per cent of those polled were in favour of a head of state chosen by the people, the model that presents the most constitutional complications.” If this opinion poll were as decisive as Barry Everingham and the ALP make us believe, then why do they want to ask the same question in an unconstitutional plebiscite? Why waste the taxpayers' money, when everything is so clear as this opinion polls suggested? Why do they not want to go the right way and put a referendum to the people and have the people decide what they want as it is the proper way, the constitutional way?

However, Barry Everingham noticed: “The burning issue is not being helped by either ACM [Australians for Constitutional Monarchy] or the Australian Republican Movement (ARM); neither organisation seems geared to attracting publicity for their respective causes, which is confusing in the ARM's case given that our major news outlets are pro-republic.” Had Barry had a look at AR’s website recently, he could have noticed that there hasn’t been an update for the past three months. When I checked ARM’s website yesterday, the most recent update I could find was done in October 2008.

He was even less attentive to ACM’s website, which according to Barry Everingham “carries daily commentary by the group's ‘convenor’, Professor David Flint, which in the main revolves around British and European royalty”. To be fair, I must admit I did not make a statistics on ACM’s topics, but in my judgement “British and European royalty” take less than a third of all topics. The Australian agenda is evident for everyone who follows David Flint’s send outs regularly.

But someone like Barry Everingham, who does not seem to miss ARM’s send outs, cannot be expected to follow the regular Monarchist opinion pieces. Nobody has been more productive in handing out information on the Constitutional Monarchy in Australia than David Flint. Everybody knows, what he stands for and form an opinion of their own.

Does the same go for any republican?

After reading Barry Everingham, I have only a vague guess that he might like some republican model leaning towards the US presidential system. But he does not say it explicitly: “America's system is not perfect, but it's theirs. It is also high time to assume the dignity of being our own people with a modern constitution and an Australian head of state.”

Does this give you a clue what he wants?

Prince Charles visits Indonesia at a time Australian media await the death of the Bali bombers
While the Australian media eagerly wait for the execution of the Bali bombers, Prince Charles has arrived in Indonesia. The heir to the Australian throne will visit rainforest conservation work on Sumatra island before travelling to Jakarta to meet Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Prince Charles will also travel to Yogyakarta on Java island to meet the city's hereditary Sultan Hamengkubuwono X. Recently Indonesian Monarchists defended his institution against republican attacks.

Local media reported heightened security around Jakarta's Halim Perdanakusuma airbase in the lead-up to his visit, which comes as Indonesia prepares to execute three Islamist militants behind 2002 bombings on Bali island that killed more than 200 people, 88 of them Australian. Authorities in Indonesia are guarding against a possible violent backlash by supporters of the bombers.

Australia’s next King took up the initiative and set up the Prince’s Rainforest Project. You can sign up here and receive his newsletter. Prince Charles has a special interest in the SE Asian/Oceanean region. His visit to Indonesia is an example how he gets first hand information and promote his ideas.

A pity, he is so close to Australia, but our politicians did not invite him to come downunder and explain his Rainforest Project. But I am sure to find nasty comments in this country's media. For instance “Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty” Barry Everingham will find it appalling that the heir to the throne missed Australia. He will of course not write immediately, but will wait until a British tabloid had reported on Prince Charles' visit to Indonesia, then and only then will “Melbourne personality and columnist Barry Everingham” publish his nasty remarks in the HeraldSun or may be in The Age, which is always open to republican prejudice.

I am sure the Australian republicans will blame the Prince for not touching Australian soil, as if Prince Charles would have refused an Australian invitation. In a Constitutional Monarchy like Australia, the Prince of Wales acts on the advice of His mother's Australian government's advice.

Prince Charles' 60th Birthday and the Australian media

Prince Charles, Australia’s future King, will turn 60 on 14th November. The Australian media get ready for the birthday celebrations in a way they deem appropriate. And as always, “Melbourne personality and columnist Barry Everingham” acts as leader of the pack in hunting down the heir to the throne. Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday HeraldSun of 26th October 2008 contained the article Royal affair killed Kanga that was originally published on 11th October by Christopher Wilson in Britain’s The Daily Mail The lonely death of Charles’s other mistress. Strangely enough, the Sunday HeraldSun gives credit to a “Charles Wilson”. Obviously the Australian journalists were so obsessed with the name Charles, that they accidentally replaced Christopher with the Prince of Wales’ first name.

Except some minor editing the original article was copied, however the new headline had a malicious accusation. And there was another major change: The opinion of Barry Everingham … a Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty, as he was previously introduced by the HeraldSun, was fiddled into what was a personal testimony of Christopher/Charles Wilson on the life of Lady Dale Tryon. She was born in 1947 to a wealthy Melburnian family and died aged only 50 in 1997. The article infers that Lady Tryon’s “beauty and Australian informality” won the Prince’s heart. “Did we know that her nickname Kanga came from HRH’s very own lips?”, Wilson asks. And the speculation goes on: “She had given herself to the Prince of Wales and he had loved her, for however brief a time.” All this is far from hard evidence for anything else, but that Dale and Prince Charles were good friends.

Refering to her tragic death, Wilson recalls all her illnesses: “There was a recurrence of her childhood spina bifida and, as she fought this off, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer.” In 1996 she checked herself into Farm Place, a fashionable rehab clinic to rid herself of her dependence on painkillers. "While undergoing treatment there, Kanga fell from a window, shattering her spine." She started fantasising that someone was trying to kill her. She and her husband divorced the same year. She travelled to India, contracted an illness, returned to the UK, went to hospital and developed septicaemia and died in November 1997.

A tragic life, certainly, and a sad end to former fashion icon, but what does Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty Barry Everingham make of this story? The Sunday HeraldSun: “Everingham is certain Lady Tryon was very much in love with Prince Charles and believes their relationship had an effect on her declining health. ‘Her break-up with Prince Charles may not have been the cause for her demise, but it didn't help. She had a broken heart.’''

This is just short of accusing the Prince of Wales of being responsible for Lady Tryon’s premature death. A ridiculous assumption considering her long list of illnesses that go even back to her childhood.

At least republican Barry Everingham’s efforts to manipulate an English article and use it for his own purposes are easy to unveil. Is that all Australian republicans can raise to fight the Australian Crown? Who is more dependent of "mother England"? Australian republicans can't even write their own articles. They can only add nastiness to British tabloid news items.

Not my cup of tea

Barry Everingham’s newest attack on the Queen of Australia did not pass unnoticed. In The Age of 22nd August was another letter to the editor: “HOW Sad. Perhaps we should invite the Queen to Australia to have afternoon tea with our athletes?” This short statement was crowned with a cartoon ridiculing the Queen: “This is not my cup of tea.” In combination with an anti-monarchist cartoon the letter to the editor sounded rather pro-republican.

However, Adrian Jackson, who had written the letter, happens to be a Monarchist. Previously he had sent pro-Monarchist letters to The Age. How could he send in a letter that obvioulsy supported Barry Everingham? As a matter of fact, he didn’t. On my enquiry he replied: “The Age only published part of my 50/50 letter today as my critism of Barry Everingham was deleted by them and the letter twisted to sound a bit anti Queen. I rang The Age about this. I bet his letters don't get censored or amended.”

You cannot really be surprised by The Age’s bias, but this kind of censorship borders on manipulation. And for this kind of editing The Age claims to be a quality paper? Incidents like this demonstrate the lack of a quality newspaper in Victoria.

Tea with the Queen of Australia

For once Barry Everingham tried to be funny: “The Australian head of state is reported to have already asked members of the successful British Olympic team to afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace. Where is her invitation to her successful Australian team? Am I missing something here?" (The Age, 21st August 2008)

Yes, he is, but that doesn’t come as a surprise. I assume the Queen of Australia’s representative, the Governor-General will be very happy to receive every Olympic sportsperson and all the men and women in the background of the team as well. And I am sure, Her Majesty herself would like to receive them, unless, SHE is not invited. It is Her Australian Prime Minister who must sent notice that Her presence would be welcome. In a Constitutional Monarchy such as Australia the Monarch acts on Her Prime Minister’s advice.

Barry Everingham’s complaint goes into the wrong direction: He should blame Prime Minister Rudd that Her Majesty does not spend more time in Australia.

Or do I hear in his letter to the editor of The Age Barry Everingham’s plea for a resident Monarch?

Evict the Queen from Buck House: Make space for Rupert!

You would not have guessed it: Barry Everingham is a Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty. Melbourne’s tabloid newspaper HeraldSun is one of his favourite media to publish his articles and the HeraldSun gave the author that discription.

Considering the number of articles he writes on the Monarchy in Australia as well as the British Monarchy and the republican tendencies in both countries, he must earn a substantial amount of money. Let’s hope he gets enough to live royally. The commentator's latest presumably well paid attack on Royalty was published on 8th July in the HeraldSun

Barry Everingham is disgusted that “our own head of state has complained she hasn't enough money for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace. The Queen wants the Government to allocate a huge sum to keep the crumbling building shipshape”.

Dear me, what has she asked for? A 70 percent payrise like French president Nicolas Sarkozy? He got immediately what he wanted from a rubber stamp Assemblée Nationale, but Barry Everingham was not referring to the civil list the British Parliament draws up every year to pay for the cost for the Monarchy. Actually, you will not find the annual budget for the Monarchy in Barry Everingham’s article. You have to look into more serious media to find this: “The monarchy now costs £40 million to maintain, up £2 million in the last year, according to an annual report from Buckingham Palace. The Queen spent £1.2 million on catering and hospitality and £600,000 on housekeeping and furnishings.” Or you can go the British Monarchy website and download the annual financial report.

You will then discover facts Barry Everingham avoids to mention: “The Royal Public Finances annual report, which includes details of public expenditure on property and travel, states that Head of State expenditure for 2007-08 at £40.0 million (including VAT of £2.6 million) has increased by 2.0% in real terms. Over the past seven years it has decreased in real terms by 3.1%.”

Unlike French president Sarkozy or US-president George Bush the Queen does not get a salary. The Royal Budget is mainly spent on people who work for the Monarchy. As long as a country has a head of state, costs arise to keep the machinery going – in a Monarchy as well as in a republic. Claims, a republic would be cheaper, have very often proven wrong, like here.

However, Barry Everingham goes even further in proclaiming: “The Queen wants the Government to allocate a huge sum to keep the crumbling building shipshape.” Again, he follows the motto: Don’t let facts disturb your prejudice. The fact is that Buckingham Palace and other residences are in urgent need of repairs. Already in June last year The Daily Mail warned:

“At Frogmore, which is in the grounds of Home Park at Windsor, parts of the Victoria and Albert Mausoleum's ceiling have fallen in and the situation is so serious that English Heritage has warned it may need to be closed completely.

"The problems are most acute, however, at Buckingham Palace. The elegant quadrangle is described as a 'potential risk to health and safety'. Built in 1847 out of Caen stone, it has been badly affected by the elements.

"Although aides insist the area is not dangerous for members of the public, they admit the incident involving Princess Anne's car in February was a close call. 'It was fairly dramatic. To have the nation's palaces crumbling in front of our eyes simply isn't acceptable,' one senior aide said.

"The maintenance of official royal residences is funded by a grant from the Department for Culture Media and Sport. If the Queen is refused the extra money, aides say they will have to divert it from other essential projects rather than play roulette with public safety.

"Sir Alan added:'There is a critical backlog in maintenance projects already, however, and if our historic buildings are to remain safe it is essential that the grant is increased by £1million per year.'"

You may well ask: Why does the Queen not receive the necessary funds? The answer is simple: Because of the bloody Olympics: Queen refused government grant because of 2012 Olympic Games

Cheap republican Britain?
Returning to Barry Everingham's article we have to ascertain that he does not give any figures, he just talks about “a huge sum”. Would this sum be smaller in a republican Britain? Certainly, victorious republicans would not let the Royal Family stay in Buckingham Palace, but would nationalize this building and many more Royal Residences. Who would then pay for the repair work? The incoming president himself? Does George Bush pay for any damage his presidency causes - locally or worldwide? Still the people, I guess, like in any other republic. Barry Everingham’s envy game is as lucid as his sources are doubtful.

With a little help from his Marxist friend
In his HeraldSun article Barry Everingham relies heavily on an article published in the London newspaper The Times: “One newspaper headline rather rudely, yet hilariously, reported 'One is on one's uppers', and the venerable The Times went so far as to suggest that perhaps it's time Parliament voted to abolish the monarchy, using the recent events in Nepal as a blueprint.”

We can provide you with the name of the author Barry Everingham dares to mention: Mick Hume, former editor of Living Marxism, wrote the attack on the Queen "Can't pay for your palace? Then get out" on 1st July, 2008, which inspired Barry Everingham to his flaming crusade against "the greedy royals" six days later.

I don't know if Mick Hume is a staff writer of The Times or just a freelancer like Barry Everingham. It is significant, that both newspapers, The Times and the HeraldSun belong to Rupert Murdoch’s world wide media empire. They all follow the same pattern: Discredit the Monarchy, but make money for Rupert. That’s obviously as fine for good old marxists in Britain as for their fellow republican imitators in Australia. Or should I have missed an attack by Barry Everingham on the Murdoch dynasty?