Britain and Australia reject republicanism

Three quarters of people asked in a recent opinion poll believe that the newborn Prince George of Cambridge will one day accede to the throne to which he is third in line, the ComRes survey for The Sunday Telegraph found.

Just 9 per cent of those questioned think that he will not become king because Britain will have become a republic - whereas a poll in 2011 found that a quarter of people expected a republic to emerge within 50 years.

Even among 18 to 24-year-olds, the age group most likely to hold republican views, today’s poll shows a solid 69 per cent believe that Prince George will one day become king.

The poll suggests that the majority of the country sees no benefit in republicanism, with some two thirds of those polled (66 per cent) thinking that Britain is better off as a monarchy.

Only 17 per cent wanted a republic instead.

As a coincidence Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian published an article two days before the UK poll became public stating that Modern Monarchy depresses republicans.

[Australian Republican Movement (ARM) national director David Morris], "the man charged with leading the push for Australia to become a republic admits he's 'very depressed'.

"The ARM national director insists most people want Australia to become a republic when the current Queen's reign ends.

"In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

"But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.

"'This week the media has taken a lot more interest in talking about Australian nationhood at a time of a UK event and yet when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest,' Morris says.

"'It's very depressing.'"

Even in The Age's editorial Hooray! A new Royal. May he never be our king despite its vitriolic tone, depression shines through:

"Here, republican sentiment has largely been dormant since the 1999 referendum, absent a convincing champion to drive the quest anew. But the arguments for Australia to sever ties to the monarchy have only become more compelling as Asia has boomed."

Why the Asian economic boom should have anything to day with Australia's form of state is The Age's secret. As an independent nation Australia said No in a fair and free referendum in 1999, something most Asian nation never experienced. With its rejection of republicanism Australia could become a model for the emerging countries in Asia.

Sour times for Australian republicans

Funny, how history repeats itself. Already the old Greek fable-ist and story teller Aesop (c. 620–564 BC), had the fox declare, that the grapes he could not reach were sour (The Fox and the Grapes). Today's fox is called Malcolm Turnbull and he proclaimed last Friday, the voting with a paper ballot would not help to achieve his aim to establish a republican regime in Australia. Therefore Turnbull advocated an "online plebiscite" on the abolition the monarchy as a precursor to a new republic referendum, saying web-based polls have become more reliable than the traditional paper ballot.

How desperate must republicans be, if they do not trust in ballot papers anymore and put their hope in easy to manipulate online voting systems?

Turnbull was speaking at a fundraising banquet in Sydney, on which Murdoch media (The Australian and MX) widely reported. They can rely on Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda machine. MX wrote: “Current [ARM] chairman Gallop said it was again time to discuss cutting ties with the monarchy after the topic ‘went off the boil’ ...”. Did you notice the subtle irony “it was time again”? How many revivals will the Australian republicans celebrate? Why not accept that the people of  Australia have selected our Monarchy and help make it work for the benefit of the Australian people and the democratic institutions?

“Gallop said ARM had spent the past year rethinking how the subject should be re-introduced.” And the result of a one year thinking is the grandiose proclamation “web-based polls have become more reliable than the traditional paper ballot”. Do they really believe this could bring a republican system to Australia?

The grapes will remain sour for Australian republicans.

Prince Charles in Melbourne: In November 2012 a huge crowd welcomed Australia's future King - more than would ever turn out to see Malcolm Turnbull.

Freedom of the Press, best protected by a Crown

The 2013 Reporters Without Borders (RWB) World Press Freedom Index makes interesting reading. “This year’s index is a better reflection of the attitudes and intentions of governments towards media freedom in the medium or long term."

The same three European countries that headed the index last year hold the top three positions again this year. Of the 2013 Top Ten of the countries with the greatest freedom of the press eight are Monarchies: The Kingdom of the Netherland (Rank 2), the Kingdom of Norway (3), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (4), the Principality of Andorra (5), the Kingdom of Denmark (6), the Principality of Liechtenstein (7),the Dominion of New Zealand (8) and the Kingdom of Sweden (10). RWB: “Although many criteria are considered, ranging from legislation to violence against journalists, [monarchist] countries occupy the top of the index while dictatorial [republics] occupy the last three positions.”

Australia sits on rank 26, better than the rank 30 it occupied the year before. RWB does not explain Australia’s position, but the position in the top 30 may have something to do with the fact that the Australian media suffer from being in the hands of few media companies. News Limited (Murdoch) and Fairfax dominate the media business.

The USA turns up on rank 32, which may come as a surprise for the “great republic”. Constitutional Monarchies like Jamaica (rank 13) fare better than republics like France (rank 37).

The 14 countries with the most restricted media expression are all republics of some sort (people’s republics, democratic people’s republics or islamic republics like Iran, Yemen, Laos, China or Eritrea). The least free Monarchy on this list is the Kingdom of Bahrain on rank 165 (8 ranks better than in 2012).

Republicans never get tired of calling Monarchies “undemocratic” and they love to equate republics with democracies, but in reality nowhere is the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media in better hands than in crowned democracies.

This is a fact pointed out in the Canadian book : Freedom wears a Crown, and is a point well known to Monarchists, but ignored by republicans.

Dame Elisabeth Murdoch dead at 103

In a press release The Australian Monarchist League paid homage to Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, who died peacefully at the garden estate home in Langwarrin in Melbourne's outer southeast:

DAME ELISABETH - NOT JUST A BENEFACTOR BUT A GREAT MONARCHIST

Australia has lost not merely a great benefactor but what one really may genuinely consider to be one of our greatest treasurers.

Dame Elisabeth could easily have led a life of luxury and idleness, but she dedicated her entire existence to helping others. Did she not she herself say: "If you have money, it's easy to give it away." Something that really is not all that common amongst the seriously wealthy.

She was also a great monarchist and even though at the time she was in her nineties, she vigorously spoke out against constitutional change. She encouraged the Australian Monarchist League in its endeavours and I always felt greatly privileged to receive the notes she sent to me.

Most official accolades go to celebrities and politicians, but if anyone deserves the highest tribute of all, it is to this dear lady whose smile lit up the lives of all those who came into contact with her.

We send our sincere condolences to her family. She will remain always in our hearts.

Philip Benwell

National Chair

Australian Monarchist League

Dame Elisabeth was married to pioneering Australian journalist Sir Keith Murdoch in 1928 and they had four children - Helen, media baron Rupert, Anne and Janet.

Her community work saw the Queen make her a Dame Commander of the British Empire in 1963.

"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?

Who knew first about Crown Prince's visit?


Murdoch and Fairfax newspapers argue with each other. That's nothing new, but it is a kind of ironic, that the two equally fiercely republican papers argue about who first published news about the Danish Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary's visit to Australia. Today The Age claimed the crown for itself.

RUPERT Murdoch's excited minions grabbed the 'exclusive' stamp again and plastered it over a Sunday Herald Sun story about Denmark's Crown Princess Mary and Crown Prince Frederik coming to Australia on November 19, the headline saying 'Aussie tour dates revealed'. This column revealed on August 3 that the couple were arriving on November 19 to head the Bright Green Denmark business and trade delegation and show off their twins. Royal bridesmaid Amber Petty is 'massively excited' about the visit. The tabloid said the couple was tipped to attend the Alannah and Madeline Foundation Starry Starry Night ball, a fact also mentioned in this column and in 3AW's Rumour File in July. Not that anyone wants to ruin the 'exclusive' excitement.

News of the World

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire may be stirred, but is not shaken – yet. Last week’s events in the UK has implications on three continents, where his tentacles have got hold of the media.

Peter Oborne, Chief Political Commentator of The Daily Telegraph, wrote a scathing analysis on Mr. Murdoch’s influence on Britsh politicans Phone hacking: David Cameron is not out of the sewer yet

"For more than three decades the most powerful man in Britain has not been a politician; it has been the brilliant but ruthless US-based media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who burst on to the scene with the purchase of the News of the World in an audacious takeover bid in 1968. Within barely a decade he had built up a controlling interest in British newspapers.

"But he did not just control our media. He dominated British public life. Politicians – including prime ministers – treated him with deference and fear. Time and again the Murdoch press – using techniques of which we have only just become aware – destroyed political careers. Murdoch also claims to determine the results of general elections.

"Rupert Murdoch’s empire has been a spider at the heart of an intricate web that has poisoned British public life.

"Murdoch used his power to immense effect, undermining and attacking our greatest public institutions – above all the monarchy and the judiciary. His employees believed they were above the law and could act with impunity".

The Monarchy is truly well and alive

What's wrong with these O’Briens? Yes, Sarah O'Brien was the evil spirit at Downton Abbey, a TV series that was a huge success in the UK. Mrs O'Brien hated with a passion, but never stopped showing her employer the face of a loyal employee.

She has an equivalent in Australia: Susie O'Brien, who works at Melbourne’s mighty, but nasty tabloid newspaper, the Herald Sun, where she stated something that only republicans take for granted: Monarchy is no longer relevant. This comes as no surprise, since republicans must repeat this sentence ten times in the morning, when by getting up they realize they made no progress.

As a journalist for a Murdoch newspaper the mantra must be mumbled by arriving at the work desk.

Isn’t it a little bit risky to write: “Privilege should not be a birthright, it should be a reward for hard work and sacrifice.“ After all, Susie O’Brien, your employer, Rupert Murdoch, is about to hand down his billions to his children, who had the privilege to be born into the magnate’s family. Only recently an American bank accused Murdoch of nepotism:

New York-based Amalgamated Bank, which owns more than 1 million News Corp shares and manages $US12 billion in funds for institutional investors, alleges Mr Murdoch's proposal to use £415 million ($A673 million) of News Corp cash to buy daughter Elisabeth's TV production company, Shine, breaks the law.

"Murdoch's admitted purpose in entering into the transaction is to bring Elisabeth back to the family business, Amalgamated says in a 46-page claim lodged in a Delaware court.

The investor backlash appears designed to put Mr Murdoch's tenure and plans for family succession squarely into the minds of institutional investors and corporate governance advisers just days after Mr Murdoch's 80th birthday.

It alleges the decision to buy Shine and hand Elisabeth a seat on the News Corp board "on a silver platter" is Mr Murdoch's "latest move in his quest to shore up the News Corp-Murdoch family dynasty".

"Throughout his tenure, Murdoch has treated News Corp like a wholly owned family candy store," Amalgamated says, imposing "rampant nepotism" and allowing senior executives to "embroil News Corp in apparently illegal behaviour". (The Age, 18th March 2011)

The Monarchy is no longer relevant? It certainly rules in the Murdoch empire and the O'Briens of this world would never dare to criticise their masters (in public). There are more similarities between the fictional character of Sarah O'Brien and the real Susie O'Brien than the journalist could love.

"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.

Murdoch's War

It is typical for Rupert Murdoch’s papers, that they don’t just publish a film review, but garnish it with republican propaganda. Theodore Harvey wrote an objective review of The King’s Speech, but Anna Brain of Melbourne's MX-Talk newspaper (8th Dec. 2010) could not help herself adding another attack on the Monarchy:

She and her fellow republican journos hammer it into our heads: “... the royals have no relevance to your average Aussie ... It’s great they can sit on thrones and be rich.”

One has to wonder if Rupert Murdoch considers his chair as chief executive officer of News Corporation to be a throne and himself as allmighty ruler, but he certainly accumulated more wealth than the British Royal Family.

According to the 2010 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the U.S. and the 117th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $6.2 billion.

In Rupert Murdoch’s own newspaper The Times our Queen held rank 214 on the 2009 Richest List with £270m – a very modest sum, which Murdoch probably earns in less than six months. Murdoch’s personal wealth is 14 ½ times the Queen’s wealth.


A comparison between the Monarch’s personal wealth and Rupert Murdoch’s immense fortune and political power is rarely made – and certainly not in a glossy junk paper like MX-Talk.

One has to wonder why Murdoch’s scribes hate the Monarchy so much. All the old accusations against our Australian Monarchy ("the royals have no relevance to your average Aussie"), had been heard and certainly printed millions of times before, but have not changed the Constitution. In the Australian Constitution the Crown plays a central role and puts the politicos on second place. They certainly do not like that.

It must be frustrating for politicians and journalists alike to realise that despite all republican efforts the number of Monarchists in Australia has not diminished.

King Fouad II of Egypt

Surprise no. 1: Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal published an article on His Majesty King Fouad II of Egypt.

Big surprise no 2: The article is not only fair to the Monarch in exile, but refers also to his increasing popularity in his home country:

"Farouk fever" has been sweeping Egypt. A TV soap opera on King Farouk was such a hit its producers just unveiled another series about the royals. Books set in the era are selling briskly at the popular Diwan bookstore chain in Cairo. A tour company is marketing cruises along the Nile on a yacht with a "Farouk Suite."

"You are and you left as the king," says Youssef Makar, a friend who is seated nearby. "And to us you will always be the king."

In July 1952, the young Fouad, swaddled in fine Egyptian embroidered cotton, boarded the royal yacht with his parents and three half sisters as they fled the country during the revolution. He was in the arms of his nanny, and Farouk ordered them to walk in front of him. "He is the King," Farouk declared. They landed in Capri and Fouad, carried by his nanny, was the first off the boat.
His father's "comeback" has given Fouad a new optimism. He longs to return to Egypt in some capacity—perhaps as cultural ambassador. Monarchs such as the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, have helped their countries move to democracy, he says: "It works for Spain beautifully."

Murdoch the clairvoyant

In an interview Julia Gillard revealed her republican attitude, which did not really come as a surprise. “I believe that this nation should be a republic. I also believe that this nation has got a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth. But I think the appropriate time for this nation to be a republic will be when we see the monarch change.” She then continued, she obviously wanted to see Queen Elizabeth live a long and happy life. “Having watched her mother, there's every chance that she will.”

What was highly speculative, because a politician’s wishful thinking cannot be forced onto the Australian people, even if this politician happens to be at present the country’s prime minister, became a fact in Rupert Murdoch’s Melbourne daily MX:


The headline does not contain a question mark, as if Julia Gillard’s idea were a fact. But still, when it comes to changing the Australian Constitution it is not Rupert Murdoch – and/or any politician – who make the decision, but the Australian people.

As the British Labour politician Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, KG, OBE, FRS, PC (11 March 1916 – 24 May 1995) said: “A week is a long time in politics.” When it comes to the Queen’s lifetime, it might last for another decade and more. Who can predict the political landscape in 2020? Not even a clairvoyant like Rupert Murdoch could tell the future.

Why should the Australians not show the same loyalty to King Charles as they showed it to the other Australian Monarchs? The preparation for a referendum takes years, in which the Australian people will get used to the next Monarch. They will shout in due course of time: "The Queen is dead! Long live the King!"

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.

Monarchy-hater Rupert Murdoch knows, what people expect in his papers: Royalty

The RadicalRoyalist had quoted 'The Man Who Owns the News' by Michael Wolff before. Wolff said that the devoutly anti-monarchy Murdoch admitted that "the internal cash flow of News Corporation became highly dependent on The Sun's obsession with Diana". The day Princess Diana died, in 1997, Mr Murdoch met a News Corp executive at a bar and got blind drunk. He was "mourning" the passing of a woman whose life had been a circulation bonanza.

The latest example of Murdoch's awareness that the circulation of his newspapers can be boosted by posting "royalty news" prominently. In its report on the court case of former HeraldSun editor Bruce Guthrie vs. Murdoch's News Ltd. The Age today wrote in its print edition: "There were other clashes over coverage of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark's visit to Australia ..."

On 29th August 2008 the Danish Crown Princess attended a dinner in Melbourne as international patron of Alannah and Madeline Foundation. The managing director of The Herald and Weekly Times in Melbourne, Peter Blunden, a foundation director, complained about the story placed on page 18 of the HeraldSun. Speaking as his master's voice Blunden claimed a better placement in the tabloid paper would increase circulation.

Murdoch's men know: Royalty sells.

Surprise, surprise

John Warhurst, senior deputy chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, came to the rescue of the Murdoch media’s failed attempt to cause a stir.

The Australian was his familiar platform to accuse “opponents and Buckingham Palace of ‘muddying the waters’. ‘The position is inherently complicated, and Australians will find it hard to believe that we don't actually have an Australian as head of state,’ Warhurst said.”

Well, as explained here, The Queen of Australia is of course Australian, just as she is Canadian, Barbadian or Jamaican.

We do need to remind republicans that the Queen is a symbol of multiculturalism and multi-nationalism. As it seems, republicans have great difficulties with that concept.

Murdoch media create a storm in a tea cup

The united media power of News Corporation tried to create what they may consider “a scandal” (which would, of course, result in higher sales of the Murdoch papers).

The Australian, the HeraldSun and Sky News and probably some other papers came out this Friday with headlines like: Aussies Ask: Is The Queen Still In Charge?

Well, do they really ask? How bizarre that nobody else but Murdoch’s media noticed it. Sky News:

Australians are wondering exactly who is head of state in the latest twist to the debate over whether the country should ditch the monarchy and become a republic.

The trigger, that brought these headlines was a press release of Buckingham Palace of 22nd January 2010. Yes, it took the Murdoch press three weeks to find their scoop.

22 January 2010
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN
The Queen to address the United Nations Her Majesty The Queen, accompanied by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, will visit the United Nations in New York where The Queen will address the UN General Assembly on the 6th July, 2010.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh will arrive that day from Canada, where Her Majesty will have undertaken a Royal Visit as Queen of Canada from the 28th June – 6th July.
The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh will depart for London on the evening of the 6th July.

Background:
The Queen addressed the United Nations General Assembly in 1957.

The Queen will address the UN as the Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other United Nations member states. As well as the United Kingdom, The Queen is the Head of State of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, an association of 54 nations, all of which are also United Nations member states.

The Australian newspaper concluded: Following the triumphant tour of Australia by its potential future king, Prince William, the Queen has reasserted her claim on the title "head of state" of Australia by using it in the announcement of her address to the UN in July.

"The trigger for the confusion is the announcement by Buckingham Palace that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be addressing the UN General Assembly in July as Australia's "head of state", a statement that has taken Canberra's diplomats, officials and constitutional combatants by surprise.

"Asked by The Australian yesterday to answer questions about her forthcoming UN address and Australia's input, a spokesman for Mr Rudd said: 'Australia's head of state is HM Queen Elizabeth II, represented by the Governor-General HE Ms Quentin Bryce AC. The government is aware of the plan for the Queen to address the United Nations.

"'The Queen's speech is a matter for the Queen, but Australia will ensure the Queen is aware of Australia's views in advance of the speech.'"

These information come hardly as a surprise, which is why no other media except those of Murdoch’s empire have taken up the story.

Bad luck, Mr. Murdoch, your spin doctors have failed to trigger a new debate about Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy.

Certainly, he will set them at work again and try to push his republican agenda in the hope of improving the sale figures for his papers or the hit numbers on their websites.

The Prince and Uncle Scrooge

Murdoch’s empire is so blatant in its efforts to secure the biggest profit.

On the one hand, Murdoch's Melbourne based free tabloid mx proudly said on the cover: WARNING This newspaper contains no stories on Prince William.
But on the other hand, Murdoch’s other Melbourne newspaper, HeraldSun, is full of stories and photos of the Prince’s whirlwind tour through the Victorian countryside and the city.

Why put photos and reports in a throw-away newspaper, when the public is so interested in Prince William's visit? Murdoch knows how to make money and the HeraldSun is to use Prince William’s popularity and impressive presence in the country.

Murdoch wants you to buy the Royal Tour Souvenir edition ($1.10) of the HeraldSun. Murdoch may hate our Royal Family, but he still acknowledges that there is money to make buy publishing stories on them.

Michael Wolff said in his biography on THE MAN WHO OWNS THE NEWS: “A decade earlier, the vehemently anti-monarchist [Murdoch] drank himself silly on hearing of Princess Diana's death, fearful of what it would do to his Diana-dependent UK newspaper sales.”

However, on the HeraldSun’s website the photos of Prince William in Victoria can be accessed free of charge. The RadicalRoyalist highly recommends to have a look for yourself how the Victorians enthusiastically welcomed their future King.

Being created a Knight “greater than receiving an Oscar”

Prime Minister John Key may not be well known outside New Zealand, but his announcement that the titles of Knight and Dame are to return to the New Zealand honours system has excited not only his electorate.

The 2010 New Year’s honours list features former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, film-maker Peter Jackson, businessman Douglas Myers and US philanthropist Julian Robertson. It is an irony that Helen Clark, the administrator of the UN Development Programme and who in 2000 abolished titular honours list, joins a raft of new Dames and Knights.

The National Business Review:

“Ms Clark joins the elite Order of New Zealand, which is restricted to 20 living New Zealanders and at the moment has only 17 members.

Sir Douglas Myers, 71, has long been thought to have been a knight, judging by the many descriptions over the years in the media.

He becomes a knight companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit along with Sir Peter Jackson, health professor Sir Mason Durie, senior judge Sir Bruce Robertson and educationalist Dame Lesley Max. American citizen Julian Robertson becomes an honorary knight and cannot call himself ’Sir.’

Sir Peter’s honour comes as film career recovers from a hiatus since he collected a raft of Oscars for The Lord of the Rings trilogy in 2004. His latest film, The Lovely Bones, started its New Zealand season on Boxing Day while earlier this year his production of science fiction thriller District 9 was a critical and box office hit.

His company Weta is responsible for the special effects in the blockbuster Avatar and he is deeply involved in several new films, including a Tintin series, a remake of The Dam Busters and a new version of Tolkien’s The Hobbit.

Sir Peter did not give an interview but issued a statement saying the knighthood was an "incredible moment" that was greater than receiving an Oscar.

The 85 New Zealanders who were given honours between 2000 and 2009 which used to come with a title had the opportunity to accept the title of Knight or Dame.

"The Queen has given approval for the reinstatement of titles. The changes will be finalised and come into effect in time for the Queen's Birthday Honours list in June," Prime Minister Key said in March 2009.

Recipients of the titleless honours system were poised to take titles, according to reports. Miki, the wife of Peter Snell, a three-times Olympic gold medallist, said her husband would "go with the change".

Professor Peter Gluckman, one of New Zealand's most eminent scientists, who was also be eligible, said a title was of great value in terms of gaining recognition overseas.

What have the opponents to say? Well, here’s Idiot/Savant from “No Right Turn”:

Against knighthoods
So, out of the blue, the National government has decided to restore the archaic institution of knighthoods. Talk about turning back the clock. So instead of having our own honours system which reflects our modern society and values, we'll be aping thousand-year-old institutions of oppression and aristocratic privilege. Which is the sort of thing that happens when you retain a monarchy.

Make no mistake: this is about aristocracy, it is about hierarchy, and it is about deference. None have any place in New Zealand, a country where "Jack is as good as his master". This move is deeply at odds with egalitarian kiwi values, and it exposes National's true nature as the promoters and protectors of privilege. It also exposes their cultural cringe, their sense of insecurity and crawling sycophancy to our former imperial masters. New Zealand honours aren't good enough for them. New Zealand isn't good enough for them. I humbly suggest that if they feel that way, they should piss off somewhere else. The UK still has titles. If they want one, they could always buy one there.

Still, there is a plus side: firstly, we'll be able to find out who all National's secret donors are - there's no hiding a payback knighthood behind an anonymising trust. And secondly, we can have great fun speculating on which other "worthy" New Zealanders they'll reward. "Sir" Roger Kerr, anyone? Or maybe "Dame" Diane Foreman? What about "Sir" Richard Prebble or "Sir" Don Brash? Or will we finally see "Dame" Ruth Richardson...?
Posted by Idiot/Savant at 3/9/2009

Is it really about aristocracy?
The 2010 New Year’s honours list does not create an new aristocracy, but gives visible credit to people who served their country. A money aristocracy does not need titles. Business empires are handed down to the next generation in monarchies as well as in republics, even if the latter one deem themselves “egalitarian”. Children cannot inherit a knighthood, but receive wealth from relatives, it has always been possible. The Murdochs come to mind. Or the Packers.

The equality fetishists get upset because someone receives an honorary title, but only the fiercest Marxists would address the issue of the inherited wealth. And these Marxists certainly don’t look to China for help. Even the most Stalinist country on earth, North Korea cannot offer help, because a Communist dynasty has been established and wealth, power and titles will be handed down to the next generation of the Kim family.

People are strange. They get upset by the most insignificant things. Take this example from Germany. The country’s defence minister has ten Christian names: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jakob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester. And he even has an inherited title. He could call himself Reichsfreiherr von und zu Guttenberg, however, for practical reasons, he is addressed as Herr zu Guttenberg.

Does this make him a better politician? I don’t think so, but it also does not make him a bad politician. In September 2009 he was re-elected to the Bundestag with 68.1 percent of his electorate - a German record. His political action should be judged by his deeds, not by his name. However, reading leftist German blogs or newspaper comments one could think, this man could do nothing right, because his parents gave him ten Christian names. Should they have called him Kevin? There are already jokes about a Chancellor called Kevin (see this video).

We are all bearers of names given to us by our parents. Should an egalitarian society have any influence on this? Restrict the number of first names? Everybody would call this ridiculous. So, why do people get upset, that a country honours its scientists, its successful artists and, yes, even business leaders or sports people with three or four additional letters in front of their names? That’s beyond me.

New Zealander J Williamson of Napier said: "There is a bit of envy becoming apparent in some of these replies. By necessity this type of system is going to be based on tradition, and our history is tied up with Britain and the Queen (who is our Queen as much as their Queen!). And what is wrong with that?"

Greedy Fairfax Media

Here we go again. Fairfax Media will try to follow Murdoch's example: Fairfax, News to charge for online

Why pay for propaganda?

More Money for Murdoch

According to the BBC, Rupert Murdoch claimed to be dissatisfied with the revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content.

Therefore he intends to charge for all his news websites.

The reaction in the www-community was nearly an unanimous: "No, no, never!"

I think, Rupert Murdoch's demand for more money should be considered with more sympathy. Let all those who are interested in his republican propaganda pay for it. Those who are not interested in being indoctrinated will avoid his websites.

There are plenty of opportunities to get free information on the internet - free of charge and free of republican ideology.