Echoes

The republican media had a hard week. They were obliged to report on Prince William’s unofficial visit to Australia – and its obvious success -, but then they had to find means to degrade and minimize it.

Today’s editorial of The Age is a good example. Under the headline Goodbye, sweet prince. Hello, republic debate it repeated its well-known phrases. “He left these shores yesterday morning, having earned a good amount of respect and, indeed, affection - qualities he obviously feels in return about Australia. … The Age has long believed that a crucial defining point in Australia's nationhood is the inevitable severing of vestigial ties with the British monarchy.”

The Age even dug up old Turnbull from his retirement mansion, from where he wrote an article for Murdoch’s London newspaper The Times, stating 'that Prince William, for all his charms, will make as much difference to the republic debate as a rapturous welcome in the United States 'would indicate that the Americans are having second thoughts about 1776'".

Well, I don’t want to disappoint the editorialist, but would he do some research s/he would find quite a lot of US Monarchists who do have second thoughts about 1776. After all, nearly a third of those who read the RadicalRoyalist's blog are based in the USA. Need some help in getting in contact with them, dear Age?

The Age's arch-republican writer Michelle Grattan also read Murdoch’s London Times and was obviously delighted to find recycled Malcolm Turnbull phrases, Prince 'no obstacle to republic': "Prince William might be as charming a King as he was a Prince but could never represent Australia in the way he would represent his own country, Malcolm Turnbull has told a British audience. … Mr Turnbull, who headed the Australian Republican Movement when the [from the republican point of view, RR] unsuccessful referendum was held in 1999, maintains his opposition to a directly elected president, favouring a president being chosen by a bipartisan parliamentary vote.”

The Age’s editorial on Prince William's departure day came across as a very grumpy piece of work. Well, could we really expect any graciousness? The Age admitted: “In personal and public relations terms, and in the eyes of many Australians whose lives he briefly touched, Prince William's whirlwind visit to Sydney and Melbourne this week has been a huge success. … He showed himself to be equally comfortable in a pub or on a military firing range as when talking with victims of disastrous bushfires. In another era, not so long ago, he would have generally been hailed by Australians as a Prince for all seasons, a thoroughly satisfactory future King.”

But this editorial points the finger at the republican kerfuffle: “More serious recent setbacks to republicanism have been the byproducts of federal politics. The latest was the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of the republican movement, as leader of the Opposition. His replacement, Tony Abbott, has been a monarchist.” So, it was an overthrow of a failed Leader of Her Majesty’s Australian Opposition. Did he not fall by his own mistakes? He was replaced in a democratic election and not in an overthrow.

And getting rather nostalgic, The Age states in the same editorial: “For a bloke who keeps talking about the need for 'revolutions', Rudd is remarkably coy about upsetting the status quo. But all is not lost. … A massed chorus of government spinners immediately sought to howl down such a possibility. We hope that [federal Attorney-General, Robert] McClelland, the point minister, is right and that a republic referendum is still very much a live option - and not too far down the track. It certainly should be.”

However, The Age, like all republicans, never admit, what they will do, should the Monarchists win the referendum again. They never contemplate defeat. That's not in their Weltanschauung. But if it should happen again, will they finally accept a democratic decision and live within the framework of a Constitutional Monarchy? Or will they continue to work on the overthrow of the Monarchy - no matter, what the people decided?

The Age’s other renowned arch-republican writer Michael Shmith searched the British media for their reaction of Prince William’s tour down under. “For all the efforts of myriad royal reporters, whose life's work is to serve as humble scribes to those with kind hearts and coronets, the fate of the William roadshow came down to the words on top of their peerless prose.” He was not impressed by The Daily Telegraph’s headline:

“'Prince William thanks Australians for their show of affection’. How nice and precise. The Sun: 'Wills has made Oz love Royals again'. This was accompanied by a short appreciation by that well-known constitutional authority, star of soap and pantomime, Jason Donovan, who says, 'What Prince William does bring is a clean slate … [he] can reinvigorate and re-invent the royal family for Australians.'” Certainly, Michael Shmith is a far greater well-known constitutional authority than Jason Donovan. But who is better known outside the republican circles? And this silly me thought everybody should have a say in the Monarchy vs. republic discussion. It seems, only republican artists are welcome to express their opinion.

Where are the letters to the editor?
In the letters to the editor section there was still no great rush to push the republican agenda. Today's Age has two meager two-sentence-statements that don't even appear online. The pro-Monarchy one was written by someone who lives in Victoria -, the other one opposing Prince William was - once again - sent in by a NSW resident, like the one and only letter on Prince William's visit that was published two days ago. Where are all the Victorian republicans?

The RadicalRoyalist is getting ready for The Sunday Age. Considering the paper's pushy republicanism, the poor subscribers will face the opinion of a well-known constitutional authority like, well, let's say, Guy Rundle, who can always be expected to promote "a" republic for Australia. How good of him. Since he has been living in the United Kingdom for some time, he really knows exactly, what is going on in Australia and what is good for us.
So, nobody is interested, huh?

The Windsor Hotel, Melbourne

In the 1880s, the top end of Collins and Spring streets formed an elegant and fashionable residential part of Melbourne.

It does not happen very often that I agree with Guy Rundle, but in his latest opinion piece in The Sunday Age he hit the right tone: “… Melbourne is still recognisably a historic city, with layers and textures, laneways and lifeways that give it a global brand, and a source of future value. It does not reside in any one building, but in the mix.” He is worried about the latest plans to demolish Lonsdale House, “one of the city’s best remaining 1930’s art deco buildings” and plans of a “makeover” of the Windsor Hotel that would ruin the whole ensemble opposite Parliament House.

Present view of The Windsor Hotel.

The plans that were published last week include a 25-storey glass tower for additional guest and meeting rooms plus health and leisure facilities. The Windsor tower would be 92 metres high, despite a height control of 23 metres under the existing planning overlay for the area. A new corner building will replace the 1960s north wing addition. This corner building is certainly not a beauty, but by far better than the proposed concrete glass box (see photos) described by one commentator as "a block of swiss cheese".

The existing corner building was erected in the 1960s.

The planned 25-storey glass tower would be 92 metres high with the proposed "block of swiss cheese" concrete and glass box to the right of The Windsor Hotel.

Architect Bill Corker, of Denton Corker Marshall, represents the company that is responsible for the Melbourne Museum (... complete with its own ski jump in yellow) and the Westin and Adelphi hotels.

The Westin Hotel in particular reveals that Denton Corker Marshall have no history of sympathetic development, blocking (very controversially) the vista between the Town Hall and St Paul's Cathederal.

The developers are confident their plans will be approved and have been discussing the project with Planning Minister Justin Madden’s department since November. Bill Corker said department officials had shown good body language in meetings and he had a good “vibe” about its success. Corker said the height of the tower was irrelevant in light of its good design.

It does not come as a surprise that architect guru Norman Day defended the planned monstrosity in an Age article. He threatened: “Architects Denton Corker Marshall’s plans for the Windsor provide a measure of the way the hotel should develop, but they got further, suggesting a prototype for developing any part of Melbourne where significant heritage issues apply.” Isn't is scary to think this might be the prototype for Melbourne's future?

The original Windsor building could be “recovered, re-instated to its original role as a major piece of urban stage scenery” (Norman Day), but there is less and less left of the original Melbourne flair. The new glass boxes may be to the united architects guild’s delight, but ordinary Melburnians or tourists will hardly rejoice of what is to be seen. Melbourne’s distinctive look disappears and is replaced by what planners all over the world approve. The new buildings will neither add something to the city’s appeal not will the stand for very long. The demolition men will be delighted to knock them down in a couple of decades.

We are in urgent need of the greatest critic of modern architecture, Australia’s future King. Prince Charles told Royal Institute of British Architects as recently as on 12th May 2009: "Few people dare to speak out ... for the very good reason that if they do they find themselves abused and insulted, accused of being old-fashioned, out of touch, reactionary, anti-progress, even anti-science - as if it was some kind of unholy blasphemy to question the state of our surroundings, of our natural environment, our food security, our climate and our own human identity and meaning. Little wonder, then, that most people shy away from pointing out that the Emperor isn't actually wearing very many clothes any more."

I wonder what Guy Rundle would make of an ally like Prince Charles. At least the marxist could not claim that the Prince of Wales of being a non-resident and therefore having no right to speak up. After all according to The Age, "Guy Rundle is an Australian writer living in England.” He may be close to Prince Charles in more than one way.

The proposed changes are just ugly and would bring no improvement to the city. These plans, especially the glass box next to the Windsor, are totally unacceptable. We should call in the Prince of Wales as the White Knight who rescues Melbourne City from the devastating grip of the united front of politicians, planners and architects.

Differences

While in the Constitutional Monarchy of Australia Victoria's only quality newspaper, The Age , printed 19 faulty lines on the Queen of Australia's Birthday, in the French republic the daily newspaper Le Figaro dedicated a whole page to the Queen on 21st April 2009:
"Faut-il s'étonner, alors que toutes les autres institutions - Église d'Angleterre, justice, Parlement ... - sont aujourd'hui déconsidérées par des scandales à répétition, qu'Élisabeth II paraisse un roc dans la tempête?"

Translation: "Does one have to wonder while all the other institutions - Church of England, justice, parliament ... - today are discredited by continuous scandals, that Elizabeth II seems to be a rock in the storm?"

The article without a single faulty line, written by Le Figaro's royal editor Stéphane Bern, yes, this French newspaper has a royal editor, is full of praise for "cette petite femme d'1.58 m, dotée d'un teint de pêche et d'un regard bleu qui la font ressembler á une porcellaine de Saxe".

It is utopian to think of a royal editor at The Age, but why don't they let their articles about our Monarchy and our Royal Family be written by someone, who can distinguish between facts and fiction, between information and defamation?

No, The Age prefers authors like Guy Rundle, who states: "The old Marxist in me wants conflict, dissatisfaction and chaos ...". He made his confession in the book "The Best Australian Political Writing 2009" and you wonder, why the editor asked Guy Rundle to contribute. After all, he lives in the United Kingdom and not in Australia.

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.]

A Republican on the road to nowhere

The Sunday Age of 1st March 2009 could not have chosen a more appropriate title for an opinion piece of Guy Rundle: “On the road to nowhere”. Rundle dug deep into old prejudices and gossip to unearth whatever seemed useful to him to show how he despises the Australian Royal Family. Even the most decayed rumours had to mentioned by this Australian writer living in England (The Sunday Age).

But what kind of a royal expert is Guy Rundle if he doesn’t even get a basic known name right? The Queen Mother was not born Mary Bowes-Lyon, but Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon. According to Rundle, after her death in 2002 she “almost completely faded from public consciousness".

However in July 2008, when the memorabilia of her former man servant William Tallon were auctioned, the 700 items fetched record prices. A note from the Queen Mother instructing Tallon " to pack two small bottles of Dubonnet and gin . . . in case it is needed" was expected to fetch up to $620, it went to a phone bidder for $33,000. Top-priced item was a portrait of the Queen Mother by Sir James Gunn, dated November 1945, which went for $62,000 -- five times its estimate. (Details see: William Tallon's royal mementoes send auction prices soaring)

It is understandable that this auction did not catch Rundle’s attention, because at that time he covered the US primaries, which cost the record sum of US $ 1 billion and culminated in the inauguration of Barack Obama on 20th January 2009, which cost the equivalent of the Queen’s Coronation in 1953. But why does he write on something he does not know well?

Calling the Prince of Wales “inveterately odd” may be republican speak, but the fact remains Prince Charles talked about climate change long before Penny Wong imagined there might be a ministerial job for her on this topic. And when it comes to Prince Charles’ opposition to GM crop, well, he is certainly in accord with the majority of the Australians ... how odd!!

Nothing is too cheap for Rundle not to use it: “[Queen Elizabeth’s] husband – a surplus unit of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glückburg branch in, as the name suggests, Greece – had an attitude closer to the old Habsburg grandees who were fond of winging peasants with a musket.” I’d like to know, if Rundle could name any Habsburg, even less one who winged peasants with a musket. And ridiculing Prince Philip’s Greek origin should be beyond someone who styles himself as an intellectual. At least he knows - I think - that Prince Philip’s grandfather was born into the Danish Royal Family – which bears the name Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glückburg – before the Greek Parliament chose him as King of the Hellenes in 1863. Does Rundle play the game of nationalistic Greeks? Nobody in Sweden gets upset because their dynasty is called Bernadottes and can be traced back to France. Royal dynasties are beyond nationalism, therefore they can serve their respective nations. I consider that a great advantage in times of nationalistic fervour everywhere.

Not even in math is Guy Rundle firm: “Queen Elizabeth’s mother and aunt [the former wife of the Australian Governor-General, the Duke of Gloucester] both lived past 100, compos mentis to the last, and she seems determined to hang on, presumably in the hope that Charles will predecease her, and the crown will pass directly to William. By then, Australia will have been a republic for two decades or whatever pieces remain of it, in 2030.” What utter nonsense to suggest the Queen would be waiting for her eldest son to predecease her! Since our Queen will celebrate her 83rd birthday this April, she would be 104 in 2030, two and a half years older than her mother was when she passed away. Should Australia have been a republic for two decades by then, Guy Rundle must hurry up to bring it in, in 2010. But there is no Australian republic on the horizon, thank heavens and thanks to people like Guy Rundle who with their mud raking actually help to make people reflect on our Royal Family.