Monarchy: A lifelong dedication to duty

The comments in an interview given recently by Prince Harry to the American magazine Newsweek in which he stated that: “the heavy burden which comes with the throne isn’t something anyone aspired to” are being broadcast - and often misinterpreted - on Australian television and other media.

In many ways, Prince Harry is quite correct. To be monarch is an awesome burden. Not only does one have to be on call 24 hours each day, read through State papers, meet with ministers to be consulted and to advise, attend various events and functions almost every day but also, worse, the monarch and heirs are in the public spotlight continuously.

The Queen has carried on her duties for over 65 years immaculately. Even though the 24/7 news cycle occurred only more recently during her reign, Her Majesty has taken it all on board and has unflinchingly continued to serve the people.

Service and duty is today what the monarchy is all about. As Prince Harry said in his interview “Despite the challenges that come with it” the monarchy was “a force for good”.

Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy has upheld our democracy for well over a hundred years during which time so many countries became republics and then dictatorships.

Philip Benwell

National Chair

Australian Monarchist League

Prince Harry from the front pages to the front line

Prince Harry has returned to Afghanistan four years after he was forced to leave the country while serving as a soldier in Helmand, because the Australian magazine New Idea did not respect the news embargo. It was condemned by its readers, who claimed the decision had put his life on the line. Its website was full of criticism.

An Australian soldier called rmpdavid, who serves in the British Army, wrote: "Well done. You broke a world embargo on this and as a result it's most likely that a young officer (who happens to be a Royal) will now have to return from operations due to the increased risk to himself and fellow British soldiers.

"As an Aussie in the British Army I'm disgusted. Poor journalism." well, there are lots of examples for that accusation.

Prince Harry was last seen in public while watching the Paralympic swimming competition. An Australian athlete gave him a present from down under, which he obvioulsy enjoyed.

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee

After spending many hours in front of the television until the early hours of the morning, this is not the time to re-capitulate the fantastic Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant.

The Queen and all members of the royal family enjoyed the biggest event on the Thames for 350 years together with an estimated 1.25 million rain-lashed royal supporters. Soon the ratings will show, how many Australians watched this spectacular show of loyalty.

It has to be admitted that the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant could not be covered in the Monday edition of The Age. But why did the chief editor decide to put in an opinion piece of the misanthropic Tim Soutphommasane?

His commentary must have been written before the event as there would not have been time for it to included in today's Age otherwise.

His comment: Last night, my thoughts turned to Philip. There he was, sitting next to the Queen on the gilded royal barge, the Spirit of Chartwell, as it floated down the Thames as part of a 1000-boat flotilla.

But had he really watched the live broadcast, he would have noticed that neither Prince Philip nor the Queen ever sat down. The Queen barely flinched and showed her stoicism by standing throughout a miserable afternoon to greet the armada in conditions reminiscent of her coronation in 1953.

Tim Soutphommasane shows his complete lack of the magic of the Monarchy by aligning the form of state with claiming that the class warfare has returned to Australia.

As a republican, I hope that Australia will one day sever its formal ties with the British monarchy. ... Yet any apathy about the republican cause might also reflect our flagging egalitarianism. Perhaps we have been growing increasingly comfortable with inequality, in its various forms. This has been accompanied by a new conservative political correctness. ... Charges of class warfare are now back in vogue. We are told that we should be generating wealth rather than redistributing it. That it's wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Republicans like Tim Soutphommasane guarantee the continuity of the Australian Monarchy. God save the Queen!

Death of a centenarian

Her Royal Highness Infanta Dona Maria Adelaide de Bragança van Uden who could celebrate her 100th birthday on 31st January has passed away today, 24th February. She was in good health when the whole Portuguese nation celebrated the landmark birthday of the youngest daughter of King Miguel II.



On her 100th birthday she was created Grand Chevalier de l’Ordre du Mérite of Portugal. The official statement called her "an example of life by moral stature."

During World War II, she lived in Vienna, where she worked as a nurse. She was active in the Resistance movement, arrested and was sentenced to death by the Gestapo, after being accused of listening to the BBC. For more information about her role in the resistance, see the book, The Hand of Compassion: portraits of moral choice during the Holocaust by Kristen Monroe.

According to the Monarchist website Arautos s'El-Rei , a private family funeral will be held for Infanta Dona Maria Adelaide de Bragança van Uden . (As cerimónias fúnebres da Senhora Infanta D. Maria Adelaide serão reservadas apenas à sua Família mas em breve será anunciado o local e a hora da Missa do 7º Dia.)

Royal Yacht Britannia: What the "Newspaper of the Year" misses out

Were The Age a good newspaper, one could argue on its articles. But very often they aren’t their own articles, but copy&paste stuff from elsewhere. Take the last two news items on the Royal Yacht Britannia: Pay for your own yacht, PM tells Queen (17th January 2012 by Bloomberg, AAP ) and Royal yacht plan hits choppy seas (18th January 2012, Gregory Katz puzzled it together from agency material [AP] and a New York Times article) ) Funny that The Age’s mast head claims to be "Newspaper of the year". That may be so, but it does not say, that The Age is a serious newspaper – it tells you more about how bad other Australian daily newspapers must be.

So, concerning the Royal Yacht Britannia and a possible replacement to mark the Queen‘s Diamond Jubilee, The Age was only too happy to re-print the negative attitudes of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Labour Party MP Tom Watson and even Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron whose "spokesman, Steve Field, said it would not be appropriate for public funds to be spent on a new yacht during times of economic hardship. But he said the government would be supportive of private efforts to provide a new ship for the queen".


What The Age did not see – or did not want to see – was that the question of a Royal Yacht has more of a political aspect and does involve the Royal Family only marginally. British Education Secretary Michael Gove had written his letter to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is overseeing jubilee celebrations, in December. Why was it leaked to The Guardian this month? And who did leak it? With what purpose? The Daily Telegraph claimed, a source from PM Cameron’s office said it was the “perceived wisdom” that the letter was leaked by Mr Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary. The leaked document was used to attack the Conservatives for allegedly planning to "waste taxpayers’ money". It later emerged that the letter was the last in a series of missives between Cabinet colleagues – with the earlier correspondence making it quite clear that no public money was involved.

Mr Huhne was only copied in to the final letter, a copy of which was leaked to The Guardian and appears to have been misinterpreted. The Energy Secretary was previously exposed for leaking information about another Cabinet colleague to the same newspaper. One senior Conservative source said: “The whole leak, and its timing was very odd. This was something that came up in the autumn – ministers are interested in helping to replace the yacht but there will be no public money.”

That’s what happens in a coalition government, where two parties try to keep their profile up and to please their supporters. A nice opportunity for publicity searcher Huhne to present himself again in shining light. The BBC wrote on him in May 2011:

No-one could accuse Chris Huhne of lacking ambition.

Within months of arriving in Parliament in 2005, the Lib Dem MP for Eastleigh was challenging for the leadership of his party, after the resignation of Charles Kennedy. ... He shot to the top of the leadership betting after a series of outspoken attacks on the Conservatives in the run-up to the referendum on changing the voting system.

And what about the Labour MP Tom Watson who shot to fame by telling The Guardian: "When school budgets are being slashed, parents will be wondering how Gove came even to suggest this idea"? He had not hesitations to claim taxpayers money for his London flat , which was exposed in what is known at the “expenses scandal” of the British Parliament in 2009. The BBC reported:

IAIN WRIGHT AND TOM WATSON
Claim: The two Labour ministers have claimed more than £100,000 for a shared London flat since May 2005, according to the Telegraph. The ministers each claimed for their share of the legal costs involved in purchasing the property and then later for the fees to buy the freehold. Neither minister has yet responded.

Response: Neither has yet responded. Tom Watson stood down as a minister on 5 June, saying the the "pressure on my young family has been painful" during his time in office.

It seems, he could leave his "young family" and return to the Commons and give silly press statements.

Most observers agree that it would be a good idea to have a swimming ambassador that could be used not only for the Royal Family, but for other purposes as well, as in 1982, when the Royal Yacht Britannia was used as a hospital ship in the Falklands War.

The British government would be supportive of private efforts to provide a new ship for the queen, was reported from PM Cameron. Certainly, the sum of £60 million ($A89.73 million) necessary to build a Royal Yacht, could be raised by private donations, however, details of who will be approached to provide money is likely to prove controversial within Whitehall amid fears the project may be dominated by wealthy Russian and Middle Eastern backers. These nouveaux riches will certainly be all too helpful to support the idea, if it gives them an entry ticket to the British society.

All these points that give a more complete picture of the matter, cannot be found in The Age. Newspaper of the Year? Which year was that?

Another ex-pat lectures us

If one would be as rude as republicans usually are, one could say, The Sunday Age’s new attack on the Monarchy came from a typical suspect. Kathy Lette’s photo in today’s paper showed a woman with short hair and long dingle dangly earrings. Sorry, the photo is not online, but the article is: Where there's a Wills …

However if you check her website you find, that Kathy Lette actually does not live in Australia: “She lives in London with her husband and two children and has just finished a stint as writer in Residence at London's Savoy Hotel.” But Fairfax media hide this fact, giving the impression of an Aussie writer publishing for other Aussies. The Sunday Age loves British authors who lecture the stupid Monarchists down under that they should grow up and do, what their senior teachers in the media keep telling them to accept. Of course it is rather impolite and ungentlemanly towards a lady who calls herself “a full time writer, demented mother” to point to her stereotype appearance, but considering what she wrote about our Royal Family, it seems rather adequate. Here are some quotes of her latest oeuvre with false and insulting accusations:

- does the prospect of a tree-hugging, pinstripe underpanted heir to the throne

- why has a pampered Pommy Prince [William] won our affection?

- In royal circles you're considered an exhibitionist if you wear open-toed sandals.

- British royals make the Addams Family look normal. What with the toe sucking, the bulimia, the affairs, the fancy dress Nazi uniforms, Andy's paedophile pals and Fergie and Sophie Wessex's cash-for-access scandals, the Windsors put the 'fun' into 'dysfunctional'

- it's time Australia had a Windsor-ectomy

Her claim ”...which is why recent polls have revealed a steady decline in support for the monarchy...” shows, how out of touch she is with Australia: The figures show a rise on the Monarchist and a decline on the republican side, with the latter having fallen far behind the figures of 1999, when they lost the referendum by 54 to 46%.

You have to feel sorry for the Fairfax media. They tried their best to find another writer than the usual three republican pens – and then they have to rely on someone who lives overseas and lectures the Aussies what is best for them. And fails to understand the reality.

A critic's view

Sometimes you have to wonder, if incompetence is a precondition to become a film or TV critic. Should you work for the Fairfax media, this alone would not qualify you for the job. A critic must be a raging republican with the ability to abuse the Australian Monarchy at every moment.

Take for example Louise Schwarzkoff, who gave her “critic’s view” on the new SBS series on the Danish Royal Family The Kingdom: Behind the Scenes (to be seen on SBS Two every Friday evening at 8 pm). "The British royal family could never allow a camera crew such access inside its palaces."

Nothing could be more wrong than her opening sentence. After having watched part one of the Danish documentary on 25th February one is reminded of the British series A Year with the Royal Family, shown in Australia in February 2008 on Channel Nine. The style was very similar. The cameras got very close access to Prince Philip who took the TV crew on a ride. The microphones caught very funny statements from Princess Anne and Prince Edward on how they feel when they are “on royal duty”. Not to mention the very impressive testimony of The Duke of Gloucester, who - as son of an Australian Governor-General - spent a couple of years in Australia.

On the first evening A Year with the Royal Family attracted 1.33 million viewers across the nation. This led the more serious programmes, Borderline with 0.989 viewers, Top Gear with 0.799 and the return of Kerry O' Brien to the 7.30 Report, with 0.657 viewers.

Louise Schwartzkoff was obviously not among the 1.33 Australians who watched the British documentary. May be she was appalled by her colleague Tim Elliott’s cranky sausage remarks in The Age on 4th February 2008:

Any program on the English monarchy is bound to be of interest, if only because you sit watching, hoping against hope, to spot a visible panty line or hear, perhaps, HRH inquiring of her Guard at Arms where one might find the crapper. For more than a year, the makers of this six-part documentary were granted "intimate access" to the workings of the British royal family, with tonight's opener focusing on a state visit to the US.

You can hardly expect Big Brother but hopes of any insights are fast extinguished, smothered by Cate Blanchett's fawning narration and an impenetrable blanket of cliches: we hear how hard the White House flower arranger has worked and get some meaningless waffle from Dale Haney, the presidential dog walker.

The Queen, meanwhile, comes across as a cranky old sausage, bored with the ceaseless sycophancy and pointless appointments. "I can't be everywhere," she says, with a dyspeptic smirk. "I can't do everything."

Their Fairfax colleague Larry Schwartz, however, actually watched the documentary and admitted: “You don’t need to be a monarchist to be impressed by this six-part series that tonight sets out to show “what it means to sit on a 20th-century-throne”. (The Age, 18th February 2008).

And another quote from the Melbourne newspaper: A BBC series, recently aired on Channel Nine, Monarchy: the Royal Family at work gives an unprecedented peek into the life and work of Queen Elizabeth and her family over the course of a year. (The Sunday Age, March 2008).

Agreed, you cannot watch everything, but before a critic hits out (Louise Schwartzkoff: “The personable Scandinavians could teach the scandal-plagued House of Windsor a thing or two.”) a journalist's duty must be to consult the own newspaper's archive. Or is the knowledge of how to keep an archive in the times of Google and Wikipedia already lost? Fairfax journalism reached a new low point.

Royal Wedding Website in Australia


The Australian Monarchist League announced the launch of it's informative Royal Wedding website.

The website has been developed to promote the royal wedding after the enormous surge of Australian interest in the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

"Drowning in Royalism"

In August 2008 Fairfax media, owner of The Age, announced the sacking of 550 people – 390 in Australia, 160 in New Zealand, among them 90 journalists. The loss of staff has forced the editors to fill their columns with bought opinion pieces or with articles published overseas. The latest example is Ben Chu’s glossy view on “the hereditary principle”, which was first published on 19th January 2011 in The Independent, a British daily with an unashamedly pro-republican tendency. The Sunday Age’s supplement “Sunday Life” reprinted Ben Chu’s article on 6th February 2011 (nothing better to publish on Her Majesty's 59th Accession Day?) with minor alterations under the title “The born supremacy”:

We are drowning in royalism. First came the gush of national enthusiasm at the announcement of the impending nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Then we were drenched in critical acclaim and publicity for The King's Speech. By the time the royal wedding comes around in April, our heads will be well and truly under monarchist water.

On the first look, it has its charm, to write an article on royalism, but I am afraid Ben Chu’s problem was, he could not find an explanation for “royalism” in Wikipedia. Because had he found a proper explanation of royalism he would never have ended with “celebrity dynasties”. The French term “royalisme” is quite straight forward:

“Royalism” is a political idea that praises or supports the kingdom, which means a political regime in which the head of the nation bears the title of king or queen, very often hereditary. It is often mixed up with “monarchism”, because there are monarchies that are not royal (i.e. imperial, princely, grand ducal etc. See also the opposite of democracy, and there exist also constitutional monarchies, especially in Europe (UK and Spain etc.). [“Royalism”] opposes republicanism.

Le royalisme est une idée politique qui prône ou soutient la royauté, c’est-à-dire un régime politique dans lequel le chef d'une nation porte le titre de roi ou de reine, le plus souvent héréditaire. Il est souvent confondu avec le monarchisme, alors qu'il existe des monarchies non royales (impériales, princières, grand-ducales...), voire entendu comme le contraire de la démocratie, alors qu'il existe des monarchies constitutionnelles, notamment en Europe (Espagne, Royaume-Uni...). Elle s'oppose au républicanisme.

From this explanation it is quite obvious that Ben Chu could not have been drowning in royalism. He may have suffered from an overdose of royalist memorabilia, newspaper articles and TV coverage, but that is in relation to our Royal Family, which Royalists may channel into royalism.

On the other hand, why is a Fairfax publication unable to find an Australian author to contemplate royalism, hereditary rules and – above all – family dynasties? Ben Chu’s opinion piece was published three weeks ago in The Independent, which may explain, why he did not give a thought on the Murdoch dynasty, whose grip on the Australian media is tighter than ever. Australia is flooded with Murdochism or Packerism and there is no rescue in sight.

Envious republicans

Everybody is entitled to a holiday. A Royal or a president, a few weeks away from daily routine are necessary for everyone. Well paid critics in the media or in politics are less generous, they try to sew dispute.

This holiday season in the Northern hemisphere saw two cases of envious reporting.

US president Barack Obama’s wife Michelle and daughter Sasha were were on a four-day visit and stayed at the five-star Villa Padierna, rated as one of the world's top 30 hotels, with 40 friends. The party has reserved 60 rooms. The First Lady went to the city of Granada and enjoyed the spectacular Alhambra Palace. Mrs Obama and her daughter also paid a visit to Spain's King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia at their summer palace on the island of Majorca, a short flight from Marbella.
From the website of the Casa de Su Majestad el Rey: Sus Majestades los Reyes y Su Alteza Real la Princesa de Asturias, acompañados de la primera dama de los Estados Unidos de America, Michelle Obama y su hija, Sasha

Mrs. Obama left no doubt that this was a private tour at her own expenses. Fair enough and the Kingdom of Spain is worth more than one visit. She will certainly be welcome whenever she wants to return to the Iberian Kingdom.

Some 250 Spanish officers and military personnel protected the Obamas during their stay. They include police divers, bomb disposal experts and dog handlers. About 70 US Secret Service agents are also in Marbella, some of them dressed undercover as tourists.

US Republicans have criticised Mrs. Obama for taking a holiday in the Kingdom of Spain instead of visiting the Gulf of Mexico. While the US security staff was paid by the US taxpayers, the cost of the 250 Spanish security personnel was shouldered by the Spaniards, and despite the country’s dire financial situation there was not criticism about the unknown bill.

Had this happened in Australia, would the republicans be up in arms against the expenditure for a foreign tourist? Certainly not, if it was a family member of a foreign republican head of state. What would they have made of the second example.

This July the Australian Royal Family had a cruise around the Western Highlands and islands of Scotland on the Hebridean Princess, a converted ferry. The Queen has paid £300,000 out of her own pocket, but that did not cover the security surrounding her, including the protective shadowing of her vessel by a Royal Navy frigate and divers.

In August 1979 Lord Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s uncle, was killed when the Irish Republican Army blew up his boat.(Sinn Féin vice-president Gerry Adams said of Lord Mountbatten's death: “The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution.”) The Royal Family is still on many terror groups’ death list. In civilised countries security measures are paid by the public for ex-prime ministers like Tony Blair as well as for authors like Sir Salman Rushdie. Only the Royal Family is always under criticism, because of the cost to protect their lives.

Gerald Warner:

„ ... By an extraordinary coincidence that [amount of money] is precisely what the frigate would have cost if it had carried out the same exercises purely in theory, without the presence of the Queen to make them more focused and realistic. The only way to avoid costs would have been to put the ship in mothballs which, with our services currently so overstretched, would hardly be practical. Don’t forget the divers! snivel the critics. Right, so, Royal Navy divers should never venture into the water, on grounds of expense – is that the idea? Should our divers keep their flippers dry while any terrorist who can use a snorkel attaches limpet mines to the vessel carrying half of the royal family?
Or if al-Qaeda were to raid the ship and hold the royal family hostage, would that be less expensive?”

Imagine, the Royal Family had decided to take a holiday in Australia, just like Michelle Obama wanted her time off in the Kingdom of Spain. The republicans would be running amok, crying foul and murder over the cost for a couple of security officers who would have to be paid anyway, since in analogy to Gerald Warner, they would have cost the same amount sitting at stand-by.

Republicans – in the US and in Australia or in the UK for that matter – just play political games, and very cheap and obvious ones as well.

The Age reports on the Queen's Flickr account in their typical style

When it came to reporting on The Queen’s new Flickr account, The Age just could not resist publishing the news not in a fair and neutral manner, but with its usual barbs against the Royal Family:

"Queen Elizabeth II is joining other proud parents starting Monday in showing off and sharing her photo albums — and those of the House of Windsor — on the online Flickr photo site.

"But don't even think about sharing any thoughts on the site about how Prince Charles might look in his nappies. Users won't be able to leave comments on the photos."

The Age has been very selective when it comes to leaving comments under articles published on their website. There are only a few news items, where readers are allowed to comment - and the comments are moderated. In those cases that it is possible to have your say, there is a strict time window that closes very often after less than 24 hours.

Not noticing that you sit in a glass-house, dear Age?

The Queen on Flickr

Hundreds of rarely seen pictures of our Royal Family have been posted on to the photo website Flickr after Buckingham Palace opened an account with the popular site.

More than 600 photographs have been added to the British Monarchy's Photostream account and the images will be continuously updated as new engagements and events take place.

The development is the latest move by the Monarchy to stay up to date with technological innovations and follows the launch of the updated royal website and British Monarchy Twitter account last year and the Royal Channel on YouTube in 2007.

Moral Outrage - there and here

The British weekly “The New Statesman” is not known for its love of the Monarchy. Publishing an article In defence of Sarah Ferguson therefore comes as a surprise and as a double edged sword:

“So, the tabloid press run by the passionate anti-Monarchist Rupert Murdoch has returned to doing what it does best today, other than attacking Labour leaders, and exposed a pre-planned sting operation on a leading Royal, Sarah Ferguson, who apparently offered access to her husband Prince Andrew in exchange for cash.

"Friends of ‘Andrew’ are lining up to condemn her in a rather ugly fashion, with Digby Jones today branding her 'delusional'. And once more this rather insecure woman is under fire. Certainly, it doesn't look good. She will, it appears, to anything to dent her vast overdraft, and is clearly not uninterested in making money (the picture in the News of the World of her with ‘eyes lit up’ at a pile of cash is, indeed, troubling, though this does seem to be a case, given the unethical practices that made this story work, of ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone’). “

Prince Andrew's role
Prince Andrew, of course, works as an unpaid special representative for a British government trade and investment agency. As The Independent wrote:

“And when it comes to opening doors for UK business, it doesn't hurt that his mother is the Queen. When he is abroad, meeting ministers and officials, he drops that fact into conversations and his audience laps it up.

"He says that countries such as China, which used to be ruled by a royal family, respond to this particularly well. 'They haven't lost their historical perspective on how things are done, I suspect. They have an understanding.'

"Clearly, though, being the son of the Queen gets him access to foreign ministers and officials, particularly in countries in the Middle East and Asia where the Royal Family has a high standing. He can cajole, coax and charm. In October, Lord Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, wrote personally to the Duke to thank him for helping the reinsurance market in obtaining a licence to operate in China. The Duke had met the vice-mayor of Shanghai and raised the issue.

"The Doncaster-based furniture maker BLP also credits him with having helped in the lifting of unexpected tax duties on the new £35m factory it had built in China. Without his assistance, the firm could have gone bust.

"His efforts don't always work. But when they do, the Duke is anxious not to claim any credit for himself: 'I'm not the person delivering; a company delivers.' Taking the plaudits, where due, might spare him some flak - but then he doesn't seem too bothered what some people think."

Meanwhile in Victoria
To return to the moral outrage that the worldwide broadcasting of the videos taken secretly of the Duchess of York, it is not a bad idea to return to Australia, because here one letter to the editor of The Age put the perspectives right:

YOU can imagine John Brumby's eyes lighting up when he hears the going rate that Fergie charges for meeting someone influential.

After all, for a fee of $5,000 companies can buy exclusive, one-on-one sessions with Victoria’s Premier John Brumby and or some ministers. The Australian Labor Party’s fund-raising branch Progressive Business is organising these get-togethers for which Murdoch’s News of the World offered the Duchess money. While everybody pretends to be appalled by this act of encashment, hardly anyone in Victoria seems to be upset that access to the premier and his cabinet can be bought.

Progressive Business aims for gross receipts of $2,000,000 this year. The Age reported that "a $10,000 gold sponsorship of a table at a last year’s dinner earned coal industry executive Alan Bond a seat next to – and the chance to bend the ear of – Mr. Brumby." Anyone wondering why the dirtiest coal power stations in this country are operating in Victoria and why the environmentalists have no chance to see them shut down?

THAT’S the real scandal and not the fact that a broke former member of the Royal Family fell into a trap. But following up this scandal infers that the media would actually target the real culprits and not aim at the soft spot. It is not easy to name and shame political corruption, when the money that changes hands also finances newspaper and TV ads.

Of course the Duchess of York was wrong in allegedly accepting money and she did apologised unlike the Australian politicians who still refuse to recognise that they are doing anything wrong in accepting money to grant access. Selling access to the premier and cabinet ministers will go on – and in an election year probably accelerate.

Predictable, populist – and rather stupid

John Williams of Bendigo in Victoria wrote a letter I had expected, when I read yesterday's Age article on Prince William's schedules for the coming years. It came as no surprise that Williams’ remarks were picked by the editor of The Age and published today:

Our disloyal 'head'
PRINCE William will campaign for Britain to host the 2018 World Cup (The Age, 4/1). His Aunty Anne did the same when Melbourne last tried for the Olympic Games. Why do we still have this family as Australia's head of state when it actively works against our interests?
John Williams, Bendigo

The article referred to stated that

“Prince William … is determined to spend the next few years developing his military career and working for the many charities and bodies of which he is patron.
“One of those roles, as president of England's Football Association, will bring him into direct competition with Australia, as Prince William has made it clear he wants to lobby for Britain to host the 2018 World Cup.”

So Williams and probably some other misguided minds who can’t think of anything else than sport, sport, and again sport see Prince William – and other members of our Royal Family – as actively working “against our interests”.

Have they ever spared a thought on using the prestige of the Australian Royal Family to lobby for our interests? Nobody denies Australia the right to ask for a royal patron. And which Australian football club has offered, let’s say, Prince Harry, a chairmanship?

Complaining about other people’s activities comes back as lack of one’s own activities. Am I right, John Williams?

I am sure members of our Royal Family would be only too happy to become spokespersons for Australian causes. When was the last time the Australian government asked Her Majesty to represent Australia?

On the other hand, Canada knows very well the value of the Queen’s presence and she represented the Canadian interests for example at Vimy in France. On 9th April 2007 a monument was re-dedicated to remember the bitter Battle of Vimy Ridge in which more than 3,500 Canadian soldiers died. Her Majesty was in France as Queen of Canada to preside over the ceremonies to rededicate the great Canadian Memorial of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, fought ninety years ago. The refurbished memorial was originally dedicated by King Edward VIII, as King of Canada, and it stands on what will forever be Canadian land, a mark of the gratitude France bears for Canada for that great victory.

In the presence of over 15,000 Canadians, The Queen, in English and in French, paid tribute to the Canadians who took the ridge.

It was a hop from the UK to France, saving the Canadian taxpayer thousands of dollars for travel allowances.

But where is no will, there’s no way, just all too predictable and very cheap efforts to discredit royal activities.

If you want a reply, write to our Royal Family

This week ACM’s Convenor David Flint pointed out that it was easier and quicker to receive a reply to a letter sent to a member of our Royal Family than to get a response from an Australian politician.

That reflects my own experience. On 25th June I wrote to Her Majesty’s Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to ask him for the transcript of a speech he held. I received an automated reply:

Contact your Prime Minister
---------------------------
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister.

Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.

If you have supplied a postal address, a reply may be sent to you via Australia Post. Your message may also be forwarded to other Federal Ministers for their consideration.

This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email as this address is not monitored.

I am still waiting for the requested manuscript.

But Mr. Rudd is probably far too much engaged in giving new speeches or his ghost writers are too busy formulating new heartbreaking appeals to “the working families” of Australia to hand out one that he held in June. We are all looking forward to the collection of Rudd’s first term in office speeches. That will certainly be a big volume.

Australian Landcare to receive no reply from Aussie pollies
But then look what happened to Rob Youl. You may not have heard from him, but he is one of those Australians who cares about the environment. He chairs a small community group centred in Melbourne and dedicated to helping spread the Australian Landcare philosophy. From his experience he can confirm Royalty’s rapid response to correspondence.

Rob told the RadicalRoyalist: “We have just released a book called Landcare: Local action, global progress. I have sent copies accompanied by considered letters to numerous Australian politicians, ambassadors and senior public servants. I can’t recall any acknowledgements, not even a quick thanks. Knowing Prince Charles’ interest in practical programs involving people I also sent him a copy. I included notes on the excellent Landcare groups around Timbertop (Mansfield, Victoria), where he spent several months as a Geelong Grammar student in 1966. His secretary replied immediately, making it obvious the Prince was well aware of my cause and background.”

Benet Northcote’s letter.

It is clear that the problem is that if you want something from an Australian “public figure” it is better to address your letter to The Queen of Australia or Prince Charles, Australia’s future King, and then you will get a reply in your letter box in no time.

Prince William and Prince Harry via a video link at Melbourne's MCG

In their first broadcast address to Australia, Prince William and Prince Harry sent their thoughts and prayers to those affected by the recent disasters in Victoria and Queensland across the Sydney and Melbourne Sound Relief concerts.

"We are very sorry that we cannot join you today in Sydney and Melbourne for these incredible concerts," Prince William said after being introduced by Australian actress Toni Collette.

The Age could not ignore the Princes: "AS THE showers that were dousing the last of Victoria's bushfires fell on the MCG yesterday, a soggy but sated 81,000-strong crowd paid tribute to Black Saturday's firefighters and its survivors, with a whooping, swaying rain dance in the thrall of some of Australia's most legendary music acts.

"The royal family also made an appearance via a video link from London, where Prince William and Prince Harry acknowledged the heroic efforts of the emergency services.

The ABC added: "'Like so many people, we saw the devastating news of the catastrophic bushfires in Victoria and floods in Queensland,' said Prince William. 'For those survivors who have lost someone they love, we can only imagine what they are going through... for them, and for all those left injured and homeless, the tragedy is far from over.'"

Prince William also paid tribute to the emergency service workers and those who volunteered their time to help save lives: “We almost must never forget the amazing and heroic efforts of the emergency services ... who have done so much to save so many lives. Nor must we forget the unsung heroism of countless people who risked their lives to save a neighbour or a stranger.”

Prince Harry thanked the performers who had put on a great show in both cities: “Today, you will all be enjoying these great performers who have generously given their time to honour those who have died and been hurt and those who risked their lives to save others. The line-up looks amazing and the concert is a magnificent effort by the Australian Music Community – to pay tribute in the way they know best. And of course all the funds raised will go a long way to help those who have lost so much. We just want to wish a great, and no doubt moving, evening to all of you – performers and crowd alike.”

Victorian Premier John Brumby: "The Queen requested daily updates on the bushfires"

I had not thought that a Victorian politician could take me by surprise. But there's always an exception from the rule.

When John Brumby explained the preparations in Melbourne for the national memorial service for the victims of the devastating bush fires in Victoria, he said: "The Queen and Her family had been receiving daily updates from our emergency services units here in Victoria. Like every day they've been wanting [them]."

Premier Brumby said the first sentence in today's Channel Nine's evening news, both sentences could be heard in Channel Ten's evening news. If the ABC used the opportunity to report on Her Majesty's interest in the devastating fires in Victoria must remain a mystery - I had no time to watch ABC's evening news. But considering the ABC's efforts to ignore our Royal Family (for her visit to Melbourne in 2006 ABC Victoria spared 13 seconds) I would not be surprised, if John Brumby was silenced on this topic.

V. P. Singh passes away
Vishwanath Pratap Singh (Hindi: विश्वनाथ प्रताप सिंह), India’s tenth prime minister, had been fighting against leukemia since 1991. On 27th November 2008 he lost the fight and passed away at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in Delhi, India. His close associate Wasim Ahmad said: "The end came at 2.45 PM.” Singh leaves behind his wife Sita Kumari and two sons Ajeya Singh and Abhay Singh. Though his term in office was short (5th Dec. 1989 to 10th Nov. 1990) he was regarded as one of the most honest and socially oriented politicians the Indian union ever has had as leader.

You may ask, why does this blog, which is dedicated to Monarchy and royal families, commemorate an Indian politician? Answer: Because he was an Indian Royal!


Born on June 25th, 1931 at Allahabad, Shri V. P. Singh was the son of Raja Bahadur Ram Gopal Singh. In 1936 he was adopted by the then Raja of Manda, Bhagwati Prasad Singh of Daiya, a Gaharwar Rajput and head of a princely estate near Allahabad.
He ascended to the throne as 40th Raja of Manda in 1941 on the death of his adoptive father and according to Indian Royalists, he remained Raja of Manda until his death in November (see scan):


He was educated at Allahabad and Poona Universities. He was married to Smt. Sita Kumari on June 25, 1955 and they had two sons. A scholarly man, he was the proud founder of Gopal Vidyalaya, Intermediate College, Koraon, Allahabad. He was the President of the Students Union at Udai Pratap College, Varanasi in 1947-48 and was the Vice-President, Allahabad University Students Union. He actively participated in Bhoodan movement in 1957 and donated a well-established farm in village Pasna, District Allahabad.

A politician with a mission to help the Indian poor
In an obituary published in The Age on 29th November 2008, there was no mention of his royal descend, that would not have fitted into the republican policy of The Age. What value does an obituary have that suppresses important parts of the deceased's life? However Melbourne’s daily newspaper gave praise to the former Indian prime minister's policy: “… He won kudos for championing the rights of the caste-conscious country’s poor, as well as the minority Muslim population.” Popularly known as the 'Mandal messiah', he pulled out the long forgotton B.P. Mandal Commission's report from a dusty government almirah and went on to implement its recommendations, giving 27 percent job reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The middle class, whose support first catapulted V. P. Singh to power as he campaigned against corruption in the Bofors gun deal, loved to hate him, and did not forgive him till the end. The Raja of Manda’s coalition government came to an end, when the support of the BJP-Hindu nationalists was withdrawn in 1990 and he no longer had a majority in the Lok Sabha (Indian House of Commons).

After his downfall he turned towards painting and writing poetry. On his own website he explained his turn towards the arts:

“The visual always fascinated me. As I grew up, I slowly realized that we not only see through our eyes, but also from the heart. Feeling is living. Beauty is Understanding. I was overwhelmed by the harmony of creation. My youth was one rapturous communion with nature. The ecstasy is gone but fragments of its memory, still, at times, shimmer, to give a sudden insight. My paintings are such fragments. Yes, they are fragments because my life is so.”

Indian Royalty play an important part in the country's politics
V. P. Singh was only one of many members of Indian Royal Families who entered politics. In 2004, my favourite Indian newspaper, The Hindu, published an article by Vinay Kumar on this phenomenon.

"More than three decades after [Indian Royalty] were stripped of their royal privileges by Indira Gandhi, they still continue to dominate public life, in some way or the other.

"With elections round the corner, former Rajas, Mahants and Nawabs are all set to enliven the poll arena in the Hindi heartland of Uttar Pradesh. They are jumping into the electoral fray for various reasons: some of them see this as a way of protecting whatever remains of their royal legacies; others see it as a way to further their political careers. But the fact is that they are here to stay.

"It was from this belt that V.P. Singh, the Raja of Manda, emerged to occupy the office of the Prime Minister. He is not the only one to have made it big in politics — there have been others such as the former Raja of Kalakanker, the late Dinesh Singh, elected from the adjoining Pratapgarh parliamentary constituency, who served as a Union Minister during the Congress regime. His daughter, Rajkumari Ratna Singh, represented the same constituency in the Lok Sabha in 1996 and in 1999. In 1991, Abhai Pratap Singh, better known as Bade Raja of Pratapgarh, won the seat on a Janata Dal ticket. His father, Ajit Pratap Singh, won from here in 1962 and 1980. Truth to tell, royals have always dominated the electoral scene in Pratapgarh. Yet another scion of Pratapgarh's ruling family, Vijay Bhushan Singh alias Babbu Raja, has also unsuccessfully contested the Assembly polls.

"'There was a time when royals built schools and shelters for the people and opened their granaries to them in times of crisis. In due course, several of them entered politics and won elections purely because they were so respected. But that is no longer the case; politics is no longer a noble profession. It is only a means to advance one's own interests,' says Raja Bhaiyya, who hails from the royal family of Bhadri and became an MLA from Kunda in 1993."

The ABC and the Monarchy
The ABC is reluctant to show documentaries on our Royal Family. Yet, when they do they are usually a great success.

They are such a great success that the ABC shop has a whole "Monarchy section" with products all related to our Australian Royal Family.

Isn't it funny that these DVDs must be selling extraordinarily well, otherwise the ABC shop wouldn't give them a place of their own.

Have a look yourself what's on stock
http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=732228

Centenário do Regicídio - Centenary of the Assassination of the Portuguese King and Crown Prince

On February 1st, 1908 King Carlos I. and Crown Prince Luis Filipe were assassinated in Lisbon.




Two Portuguese republicans Manuel Buiça and Alfredo Costa killed King Carlos I (45) and Crown Prince Luís Filipe (22). Queen Amélia and the second son, Dom Manuel, Duke of Beja (18), survived the assassination with slight injuries. Manuel was proclaimed King Manuel II. Two years later – in 1910 – revolutionaries forced him to flee to Gibraltar. Aged 43 he died in Twickenham on 2nd July 1932.

The republican system pushed Portugal into anarchy, violence, bankruptcy and finally into the Salazar dictatorship which lasted until 1974.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TjEGx1RSWoI

Portuguese Monarchists of the Aliança Internacional Monárquica Portuguesa created an impressive website for the 100th anniversary of this tragedy: www.regicidio.org . Listen to the Royal Anthem, a gun salute and photos of the coffins of the King and Crown Prince.

The Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal will hold a requiem to commemorate the assassinated King and Crown Prince on 1st February 2008 in the Basilica Sao Vicente de Fora in Lisbon:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ctygcCaFZVQ

To watch today's Royal Family of Portugal click:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_VpFaUDwA