"Charles will be our next head of state"

It seems that Shaun Carney, an associate editor of The Age, went too far yesterday. He had admitted:

“Charles will be our next head of state. And, whether I live to see it or not, I'm convinced that Charles' first-born, William, will be Australia's head of state after that.”

Today The Age’s editorial returned to the familiar republican modus vivendi:

“People who have a strong and principled attachment to the institution of monarchy may be relatively few in this country, but there are undoubtedly many who sincerely profess admiration and affection for the monarch. That fact alone may keep the republic at bay for the remainder of her reign.”

And the author of the editorial expressed equally this hope:

“The mystique of monarchy may yet prove to be merely the mystique of a monarch, and popular support for an Australian republic, which has waned in recent years, may revive. For the present, however, an observation of Liberal frontbencher and former republican leader Malcolm Turnbull probably captures the popular mood most accurately: Australia has more Elizabethans than monarchists.”

How much better did Shaun Carney capture the situation for the Australian Monarchy - at present and in the foreseeable future:

“ ...for Australians, the diamond jubilee festivities were our celebration too, because the Queen is our head of state.”

“ Charles seems a decent person who has played his part in raising two fine young men in William and Harry. None of them asked to be born into the British royal family, which, because Britain colonised this continent in the 18th century, is our royal family.

“And we had our chance to go in a different direction, but, by a national vote of 55-45 per cent, chose not to. As recently as the late 1990s, a solid majority of Australians were telling pollsters that they wanted Australia to become a republic, to cut the formal constitutional ties with Britain and to have a full-time Australian head of state. Then the republicans started squabbling about what sort of republic we should have, which cruelled the chance of success at the 1999 referendum, and the opportunity to end Australia's days as a constitutional monarchy was lost.

“Originally, the republicans - especially the direct-election advocates who had supported a ''no'' vote at the referendum - argued that the country would be able to return to the question a few years down the track. It soon became apparent that this would not happen. Then they looked to the period after the Queen's passing as the appropriate time for the move to a republic, convincing themselves that Prince Charles as king would be a turn-off to monarchists - a forlorn piece of wishful thinking.

“In the meantime, public attitudes in Australia have changed. Republican sentiment has been in steady retreat. Last year, the Queen attracted enormous numbers during her Australian visit. The gushing from Australians behind the barricades in Melbourne about the Queen's magnificence equalled the encomiums from their London counterparts this week.

“The republican cause in Australia will always have adherents, but republicanism's moment has passed. Perhaps it will return, but not for a long time.”

To publish a contradicting opinion piece with the all too familiar republican statements one day after Shaun Carney’s admission that the republican crusade has failed to capture the Australians is an effort to re-establish the newspaper’s credentials among the Australian republican circles. Alarming figures haunt the Melbourne branch of Fairfax media. The Age’s sales dropped 13.4 per cent on a weekday in the March 2012 quarter and the Saturday Age lost 12.4 per cent. Instead of transferring 66 editorial production jobs to New Zealand – which lead to a journalist strike of 36 hours in Melbourne – Fairfax should re-examine their editorial policy.

Everybody who follows the RadicalRoyalist knows, that Rupert Murdoch has no friend in this blogger, but it must be said that while The Age lost readers in double digits, Murdoch’s Melbourne tabloid HeraldSun newspaper fell only 3 per cent in March 2012.

Murdoch knows, what people want to spent money on. Last Saturday the HeraldSun offered a 52-page souvenir magazine that was sold with the newspaper on 2nd June, the day before the beginning of the big Diamond Jubilee celebrations. It is a lovely and well-edited magazine with references to the Queen of Australia and the Queen of Victoria – terms you will never find printed in The Age. How did The Age report on the Diamond Jubilee celebrations? They re-printed articles from The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. Nothing extraordinary, but perhaps the editor thought not being nasty had been praise enough.

But why should one buy a Melburnian newspaper, when there is so little content that pleases its readers?

The Age’s associate editor: "Forget about a republic or new flag"

It is only on a rare occasion, that I have to agree with an Age article concerning their propagating “a” republic. But today it happened. Shaun Carney, The Age’s associate editor, has written a very honest opinion piece, one that should be widely read by his fellow followers of republicanism:

Australia should become a republic. But it won't for a very long time, if ever. There's a better than even chance that the change won't come during the lifetime of any Australian alive today.

The political system, and Australians' deteriorating attitudes to politics and politicians, will see to that. The republican question is now what used to be called in the newspaper game a "hardy annual": a predictable, intrinsically inconsequential story that can be trotted out at the same time every year to little lasting effect.

This Australia Day weekend the hardy annual sprouted a little extra foliage with Ray Martin's revival of the suggestion that the nation should change its flag and ditch the Union Jack. That idea used to get around with the republican argument back in the 1990s, until republicans, excited by the prospect of a referendum aimed at ditching the monarchy, judged it to be too toxic and dumped it.

It is probably the case that a majority of Australian voters favour the idea of a republican Australia, as the polls suggest. But the numbers are not overwhelming. And there is often a big gap between what people tell pollsters and what they do. They say they want governments to provide greater services but they bitch about every extra tax dollar, for example. And Australians have not liked voting 'yes' at referendums since Federation.

In any case, what sort of republic are we talking about? There is no single view: the republican position is in a pre-adolescent state. There are minimalists and there are direct-electionists, with few real signs of an accord.

Since the 1999 referendum, when the minimalist proposal attracted 45 per cent of the vote and failed to carry one state, the direct-electionists have argued that every non-monarchist is obliged to fall in behind the idea of an elected ceremonial head of state. Speaking for myself, they are dreaming. The last thing this country needs is more elections and more politics, which is what this model would bring, no matter what they say. Certainly some minimalist republicans will shift but I would never back it.

Does this mean, The Age will stop it’s “hardy annual” on ANZAC Day or, more symbolically: Queen’s Birthday? I am afraid, that would be too much to expect. After all, all those republican writers need their payment. No articles – no money. Being an Australian republican means, you are in the business as long as the Monarchy prevails. They cannot wish “a” republic or do they really think opinion pieces praising the fabulous new order would be read by anyone?

The RadicalRoyalist remains cautious and on alert. After all he has to be, because he is using what Shaun Carney denounced as “the hit-and-run style of the blogosphere … that alone would probably be enough to sink any referendum”.