Backing for an Australian republic has collapsed to a 20-year low

The Ensign of The Governor-General of The Commonwealth of Australia.

It must have been a difficult day for the Fairfax journalists to admit: Voters' support for republic hits 20-year low.

With just 39.4 per cent of Australians saying they support a republic, backing for an Australian republic has collapsed to a 20-year low. An exclusive ReachTEL poll of more than 2100 Australians, conducted on Thursday night for Fairfax, shows 41.6 per cent oppose the country becoming a republic, and 19 per cent had no opinion on the issue.

It must be especially troubling for the Aussie republicans that their idea of changing the constitution is unpopular among the 18 to 35 year olds, reaching only 35.6 per cent. Only those Australians aged 65 and older are more opposed to a republic than the young ones: 30.7 per cent want a politicians' republic instead of a Constitutional Monarchy.

Geoff Gallop, chairman of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), commented rather stoically: "Polls will come and go." One wonders if he remembers the opinion polls which were commissioned by the republicans themselves, which - surprise, surprise - bring a much more favourable result for the republicans.

The Queen's next representative in Australia as Governor-General, General Peter Cosgrove AM, MC, has already proved to be more popular than the incumbent Governor-General Quentin Bryce. 57.1 per cent think Peter Cosgrove is the better Governor-General, only 42.9 per cent consider Quentin Bryce to fulfil her duties better. It might have to do with the fact that in November 2013,  Quentin Bryce used the final Boyer lecture of the year to publicly threw her support behind the republicans' cause. Most observers found it rather improper for the holder of the highest office in Australia, which should be above party politics, to get involved in such a divisive discussion. However, her son-in-law is the present leader of Her Majesty's Australian Opposition, William (Bill) Richard Shorten. Instead of her family, Quentin Bryce should have thought of the Oath of Allegiance, she took on 5th September 2008 at Parliament House, Canberra,

Oath of Allegiance
I, QUENTIN ALICE LOUISE BRYCE, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

(Quentin Alice Louise Bryce)

Australian Recruits start bootcamp with pledging allegiance to Her Majesty

A number of new Australian Defence Force recruits have been sworn-in at a ceremony before departing to commence their initial training.




Before they start recruit training they take the Oath of Allegiance, which is certified with a document that says:

This is to certify that XXXX having pleadged allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, Her Heirs and successors, has undertaken to loyally and faithfully serve Her Majesty as a member of the Royal Australian Air Force ...

Strange behaviour

Roy Hattersley in The Guardian on 16th June 2009: “As a privy councillor I am entitled to give advice to the Queen. If she wants the monarchy to continue on its untroubled way, she should tell her son to respect the restraints of his position. … She might also point out that his reverence for all things ancient does not seem to include respect for the constitution and that republicans like me rejoice at the damage he does to the idea of monarchy."

The Guardian: “Roy Hattersley is a Guardian columnist. He served in Jim Callaghan's cabinet and later became deputy leader of the Labour party.” But he became a privy councillor in 1975 and was created a life peer in 1993 as Baron Hattersley of Sparkbrook. Is this a case of one Labour peer looking after the interests of another (Lord Richard Rogers)?

Why did Roy Hattersley accept to be appointed a privy councillor if “republicans like me rejoice at the damage … to the idea of monarchy"? Wasn’t it against his republican conscience to take the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty and Her heirs and successors?

I have reached the point where I don’t believe any oath any republican swears to anything. Just take a look at our republican lot. I could swear they are betraying us.

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.]

Making a stand for the Monarchy

A democratic competition of thoughts and ideas is a wonderful thing, Monarchists and republicans can easily agree on that. However, when it comes to the practical competition, they differ.

After 22 British MPs (out of 649) challenged the Oath of Allegiance and asked the Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than to the Monarch, British republicans were in a jubilant mood:

“I get urgent response e-mails from the anti-monarchist group Republic on a regular basis. The latest concerns the move to challenge the oath of allegiance which is being widely reported in the British media today:

"Today's Daily Mail carries a front page story on Republic supporter Norman Baker MP's Early Day Motion to give MPs the option of swearing allegiance to their constituents rather than the Queen.

"This is potentially a very big story so please take a few moments to comment on the article … Let's get the republican point of view out there!”

There was a Monarchist response to the republican frency, and I don't mean heaps of letters to the editors defending the Oath of Allegiance and the Monarchy: The UK-based Constitutional Monarchy Association put advertisements in political magazines and informed readers about the Association’s point of view.

In the eyes of the republicans that was a mistake. They called the ad campaign “a rallying cry to royalists to save Britain’s most ludicrous institution” and "a reaction against the insidious influence within the media of organisations such as ‘Republic’, and the growing number of treasonous hacks who would send our dear Betty Windsor into exile or worse". They give the impression, PR ought to be a republican privilege.

"Republic spokesperson Graham Smith told reporters:

"Republic's campaign against the oath of allegiance has clearly rattled these royalist-ultras. It is extraordinary to see the monarchy advertised in this way."

"The royalists clearly fear for their beloved institution, but I would be surprised if Buckingham Palace would approve of this sort of publicity."

Among the supporters of The Constitutional Monarchy Association the republicans spotted London Lord Mayor Boris Johnson. He was disliked because he “is descended from Württembergische Royalty”.

True, one of Boris Johnson's forefathers was King Frederick I of Württemberg (1754-1816), but Boris' ancestor connecting him with Württemberg's Royal Family was born out of wedlock and there’s no chance for Boris to claim the Crown of Württemberg for himself or his descendants. The King’s son, Duke Paul (1785-1847), had fathered a child with an actress called Friederike Margrethe Porth (1776-1860). Does this disqualify Boris Johnson (*1964) from being a Monarchist? On the other hand, the republicans never refused the assistance of the 2nd Vicount Stansgate, also know as Anthony Wedgwood Benn (*1925). I never heard this would disqualify him as a republican.

22 MP’s out of 649 – a 3.38% minority in the House of Commons consisting of the usual suspects. Only one Tory had signed the motion. Peter Bottomley, the former Conservative Transport Minister, said he would support a proposal for the oath to be made voluntary. The media hype was reversely proportional to the chances of the mood to find a majority in the Houses of Parliament.

However, I do not find it appalling to discuss the Oath of Allegiance. On the other hand republicans have to accept that Royalists will not give way without a fight. The advertisement of The Constitutional Monarchy Association is a good start to put arguments of both sides to the public.

New Victorian Premier swears the Oath of Allegiance ...

... but nobody could see or hear it. The commercial Channel 9 snipped the Oath of Allegiance of Premier John Brumby before he could say "Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, her Heirs and Successors". ABC Victoria mentioned the ceremony at the Governor's Residence, but didn't even go as far as Channel 9 and convince itself to show the start of the Oath of Allegiance.

All too familiar. The Queen is blended out of the political life in Victoria. And even when the new Premier swears the Oath of Allegiance, it is to the public as if it never had happened. Do they think nobody noticed that the Premier will go back to his office and break his Oath of Allegiace? What else is the advocation of a republic?