Prince Charles in a funny Aussie video

Countdown: His Royal Highness The Prince Of Wales roasts Molly Meldrum

Do yourself a favour and check out this Countdown 40th birthday sketch in which HRH The Prince of Wales good-naturedly roasts Molly Meldrum.

Shame: Australian prank call DJ given top award

Some people really have no decency:

Royal prank call DJ Michael Christian was declared the joint "winner" of the metro category of the contest that recognises Southern Cross Austereo network's "best in the land".

Christian, who now works at Austereo's Melbourne station Fox FM, claimed regardless of "everything" that had happened he was still at the 'top of his game'.

That "everything" was a prank call to London's King Edward VII Hospital, where Christian and his colleague were put through to the Duchess of Cambridge's ward by nurse Jacintha Saldanha, who took her own life soon after the hoax.

As "Top Jock winner", Christian will fly to Los Angeles for a studio tour. Could the Americans please give him an appropriate welcome?

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.

Prince Charles in Melbourne

His Royal Highness Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, had his first encounter with Melburnians on this tour. This morning he visited the Australian Tapestry Workshop in South Melbourne and a fairly large crowd welcomed him, a well-orchestrated choir sang "We love you" and it seemed: They really meant it.

His Royal Highness received several bouquets of flowers and on his way inside chatted with bystanders.

The media scrum waiting for HRH's arrival.

Even when meeting royalty, Australians are casual.

Victorian Premier Ted Ballieu and his wife welcomed Prince Charles at the Australian Tapestry Workshop.

During the visit The Prince met children working on a joint project between the Australian Tapestry Workshop and his Prince's School of Traditional Arts.

His Royal Highness sat down amongst the local youngsters who had made a large geometric piece of artwork and spent a few minutes listening to them explain how they produced their work.

Find the prince... He is in there, somewhere!


Before leaving Prince Charles crossed the street to chat once again with members of the crowd.

Here's a report from Neville. He gave permission to post it.
Many thanks, Neville, and great you had a wonderful time in South Melbourne.

"After a humid, restless night of little sleep (thanks in no small part to my dog Bert snoring loud enough to wake the dead), I got up feeling tired and fractious. It was not hot this morning, just overcast and muggy. I decided to take Bert with me as he enjoys a good outing. So we got the train into Spencer Street and walked to South Melbourne, arriving with about an hour to spare before the Prince arrived. There were already people milling about, along with media crews and several Victoria Police officers. Bert and I settled down and I started to play "spot the undercover detective": it was not very difficult as they are pretty obvious. Eventually is was time to claim a position, and we got quite close to the front. There were lots of other dogs (some mutt in the front row got all the attention, but it was nowhere near as cute as my Bert). Soon enough there was a roar of motorcycles as the Victoria Police motorcycle squad arrived. Don't get me wrong, I think motorcycle outriders are a great way to escort a royal guest, but a dozen of them? No matter, before we knew it the Prince of Wales had arrived. There was a Christian group who started a chant of "we love you", complete with hand actions. I don't think the Prince quite knew what to make of them. The Prince made his way into the Australian Tapestry Workshop (stopping to pat the aforementioned mutt). I held Bert up for a look (he can be seen in some of the news reports, with his tongue hanging out), and he snorted and sneezed, all over the shoulder of a young man in front of me.

"Once he was inside we made our way around the corner to where the Prince would depart. We got a good spot in the front row next to the car. I don't think the officials had expected such a large crowd and I noticed the police were in a little huddle discussing what to do. Then, to my disappointment, we were all told to go out onto the street. I did not move fast enough and ended up about ten metres away from the car. Then, with perfect timing, it started to rain. All these fair weather royalists ran for cover (I just want to say that I consider such actions unspeakably soft: a little bit of rain never hurt anyone). Giant gaps appeared along the road and Bert and I made our move. We nabbed a perfect position just opposite the royal car. There was no guarantee that the Prince would do a walkabout, particularly as it was now raining, but I was still happy to get a good view to wave goodbye. Before long the Premier of Victoria appeared at the door, so we knew the Prince would be out in a moment. An officious woman from Government House (who earlier was most unfriendly when I asked her from where the car would depart) unfurled the Prince of Wales standard on the front of the car. A woman, about two metres away from me, started yelling "CHARLES, COME OVER HERE", and, to my surprise, it seemed to work (probably helped by the rain stopping).

Bert, the media star dog.

"The Prince headed over to meet the crowd. He looked very tired, but was in good form chatting and laughing with everyone. He was wearing his remembrance poppy, and the lapel pin of a Knight of the Order of Australia. A woman told him how much she admires the work he has done at Poundbury and he seemed genuinely pleased. He stopped in front of me and shook my hand. "Welcome back to Melbourne, Your Royal Highness" I said. He looked at my backpack, and the chap behind me who also wore a backpack, and asked; "Are you cyclists? You're all carry those great big things on your backs". I told him I use mine to hold my dog's water and water bowl. He looked down at Bert and I said "this is Bert, Sir", "Bert?" he replied (at this stage Bert, not very impressed, was standing with his bum pointed at the Prince". The Prince then said "one of these days one of them is going to take off my hand." I reassured him that Bert was more likely to lick off his hand. He then moved on, and a young man behind me, holding up a copy of a book on the restoration of Dumfries House, congratulated him on all he had done for the house. The Prince looked really chuffed.

"Then it was all over. The motorcycles were revving up, the car had crawled to the corner, and the officials were winding things up. The Prince got into the car and headed off for his next engagement at the MCG. Bert and I headed back to Spencer Street, stopping at a little park for Bert to prepare himself for the train trip home. I turned my back for a couple of seconds, and Bert went straight into the Yarra River. It is a little known fact that French Bulldogs cannot swim; they are top heavy and sink like a stone. I had images of having dive in to rescue him. But luckily he kept his foothold and came out when I called him. So all in all it was a very eventful morning. Bert is now sound asleep, oblivious to the fact that he has already appeared in a couple of news bulletins."

Commissario Montalbano comes out as a Monarchist




Ma io un commissario MONARCHICO SONO.

This version with subtitles was shown in Australia by SBS. The translation handled the Monarchist confession of Commissario Montalbano in a correct manner.

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?

Fighting prejudices - like the ones published in The Age

Journalists do not have to know everything, but very often they write their articles as if they are the fount of knowledge. Examples for this theory can easily be traced in our beloved newspaper, The Age.

Michael Shmith loves to hate the Australian Monarchy and must have suffered a lot of pain accompanying Her Majesty and His Royal Highness on their Melbourne tour. He went to federation Square and watched the Royal couple boarding a Melbourne tram. This led Mr Shmith to claim in an article published in today's Age, Not the Rolls or Bentley, but a commoner's conveyance gives Her Majesty a royal ride:

How often does the Queen take public transport? Well, to be honest, only when she doesn't have to share it with the public. There have been the occasional train trips - Eurostar springs to mind - but the royal personage was born to the carriage and the limousine, and to have doors opened for her by people employed for just that task. A tram, therefore, must be a new experience and, for the five minutes or so it took for this specially painted conveyance to hum along St Kilda Road, possibly an enlightening one for a woman who has, after all, seen everything.

Journalists do not have to know everything, however, when it comes to our Royal Family, it is very easy to find out, if an accusation (“to be honest, only when she doesn't have to share it with the public”) can be verified or proven wrong. And in Mr. Shmith’s case he passed on his opinion which is not based on facts.

For example, in December 2009 The Daily Mail published this story: Thrifty Queen catches ordinary passenger train on her journey to Sandring-
ham for Christmas

Fellow passengers on the 10.45 First Capital Connect service to King’s Lynn couldn’t quite believe their eyes as the Queen stepped on board a first class carriage.

The Queen, 83, appeared perfectly relaxed as she chatted with her aides for the first leg of the 100 mile journey to King’s Lynn, the nearest station to Sandringham.

But after the train’s stop at Cambridge a secretary opened a briefcase and the Queen spent most of the rest of the journey opening and reading her Christmas cards.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman added: "Members of the Royal Family, including the Queen, frequently use scheduled train services.

"We have to look at issues such as cost effectiveness and security but do try to when it is appropriate."

And even if The British newspaper is too farfetched for an Aussie journalist, The Australian ran the story as well: Queen joins commoners on royal express to Sandringham for Christmas

Mr. Shmith could also have read in The Sunday Telegraph, which said on 7th May 2011:

A royal aide said: “There is no question of the Queen or other senior members of the Royal family scaling back their official duties. But in order to be cost effective, it is likely that more scheduled train and plane services will be used.”

These train rides usually go unnoticed, which is fine, but then they escape the attention of Mr Shmith. On the other hand, when they are reported, then he and his like minded republican colleagues would claim a media stunt. Monarchists cannot win against prejudice. That will always be stronger – and gets published in The Age.

New nastiness from The Age

When it comes to nasty reports on the royal visit to Melbourne, The Age is certainly the source to check.

Of course today's editorial recalls the newspaper's republicanism that has to teach everybody its lesson. And this time it is the politicians to whom The Age addresses the demand to do something against the opinion polls' pointing to a growing number of Monarchists:

It may mean that republicans will have difficulty arousing enthusiasm for the change until her [Queen Elizabeth's] reign is over, but even that is not certain. The chief reason why support for a republic has dropped below 50 per cent in several recent polls is that Australia's political leaders are reluctant to make the case for one.

The Age certainly does not lack enthusiasm for republicanism, but they have not understood that the Australians have an understandable and deep rooted mistrust of politicians.

After this highly successful royal tour one can be certain that the Australian Monarchy will outlive the printed version of The Age.

Watch the German Royal Wedding on the internet
When asked earlier this year, RBB - Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, the public TV-station of Berlin and Brandenburg - were reluctant to broadcast the wedding of HIH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and HSH Princess Sophie of Isenburg.

A month ago RBB announced it would cover the wedding in Potsdam live from 11 am to 2 pm plus a 40-minute documentary with the day's highlights in the evening. They refused to stream the wedding live on the internet.

This decision has been reversed.

This Saturday the whole world can watch the "German wedding of the year" on the internet. From 19 pm AEST to 22 pm AEST the ceremony should be seen on the RBB's website or on the Hessischen Rundfunk, HR's website (which could provide a better connection).

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".

Boringly republican Age


In today’s Queen’s Birthday holiday editorial The Age has written, what everybody – Monarchists or republicans alike – expected from this Melbourne daily newspaper. The author made clear that the newspaper is unwavering favouring “a” republic and despises our Monarchy. The Age did, what in an opinion piece on 27th January 2010 The Age’s associate editor, Shawn Carney, called a “hardy annual”:

“The republican question is now what used to be called in the newspaper game a 'hardy annual': a predictable, intrinsically inconsequential story that can be trotted out at the same time every year to little lasting effect.”

But what about a journalistic duty to report on the actual events? Would it not have been The Age’s duty as a quality newspaper, to publish something that is connected with this Queen’s Birthday holiday? What about a photo and a little article on the Royal Military College of Duntroon’s celebrating The Queen's Birthday with a traditional Trooping the Colour parade last Saturday? Or alternatively a photo from the Trooping the Colour event in London, also on Saturday? The Age may be a fiercely republican newspaper, but seems to forget that more than half of the Victorians voted in favour of retaining the Monarchy in the 1999 referendum. Would it not be a newspaper’s duty to publish something on what at least 50 percent of The Age’s readers love?

Swiss author Max Frisch once said: “You don’t have to lie – concealing is enough.” He was cynically referring to politicians, not to journalists, but a subscriber of The Age could get the impression that the newspaper’s political agenda is to conceal everything concerning the Monarchy that could be styled as "nice news". They conceal from their readers what does not fit into their conception of Zeitgeist.

Australia Post is commemorating the Royal Wedding

According to The Age more than 7 million Australians tuned in across the free-to-air networks, the bulk watching Seven (29.8 per cent) and Nine (22.7 per cent). The RadicalRoyalist could not get hold of the pay TV figures, but they must show a considerable number of viewers since many would have preferred the BBC or UK-TV's comments to the remarks of, let's say, Channel Nine's republican expat Kathy Lette.


Australia Post was commemorating the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton with the release of the official stamps issued on 12th April.


"Australia Post is delighted to commemorate the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, with a set of stamps that captures the happy couple on their wedding day," said Australia Post Managing Director and CEO, Ahmed Fahour.

"The official stamp issue has been very popular, with a number of post offices making additional orders to keep up with the strong demand. We are encouraging stamp collectors and royal fans to put their orders in early to avoid disappointment. Australia Post has a proud history of commemorating significant events with instant stamp issues."

The stamps with a motif of the actual wedding could be released within days of the wedding due to special technology that allows the images to be uploaded into a Royal Wedding stamp template, pre-approved by Buckingham Palace.


The stamps and associated products are available from participating Australia Post retail outlets, via mail order on 1800 331 794 and online at auspost.com.au/stamps while stocks last.

The ABC's undergraduate style

The ABC continues to deny being anti-monarchist. It is more as if the ABC sees itself as a victim of a “royal censorship”, especially after the BBC threatened to block the ABC from its entire royal wedding coverage unless the ABC cancelled plans for as “alternative” Chaser’s Royal Wedding Commentary on ABC2. Known for their “undergraduate style” (The Age), ABC’s director of television, Kim Dalton, implied the incident was a form of censorship: “In Australia, we’re not used to these sorts of conditions being placed on the media and you can’t help but observe these restrictions are being placed on the media on behalf of a future head of state of Australia.”

This remark came shortly after Trevor Graham, “a filmmaker best known for his progressive documentaries" (The Age, 21st April 2011) had his own encounter with the ABC's attitude. When Graham, who was described by The Age as "firmly believing that Australia should become a republic” suggested his latest documentary on Australia’s Royal Family A Royal Romance to the ABC “there were sneers that the line he was taking wasn’t as pro-republican as it ‘should have been or could have been’.”

In the end the film was shown on ABC1, but it is obvious, that the public broadcaster’s sympathies lies more with a royal satire which the Chasers thought they could provide.

Another example of a pro-republican bias? Here’s one that announced a discussion between Deputy Chair of the Australian Republican Movement John Warhurst, Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League Philip Benwell:

On the eve of the Royal Wedding Statewide Mornings presenter Leon Compton took the opportunity to analyse the on-going question of whether Australia should become a Republic or remain a loyal servant to the British Monarchy.

An equal treatment would look differently. Since when is an Australian Monarchist “a loyal servant to the British Monarch”? The ”republic” as a neutral term, but the Monarchy connect with a negative inclination. Is this really the open-mindedness the ABC is officially proclaiming?

And we won’t mention the last Sunday's “Insiders” programme that made up a story about the Queen’s republican tendencies. Just ridiculous, not even good as an April’s fool joke.

The ABC must do more to dissipate doubts of its objectivity.

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.

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.

The Prince and A Gentleman

Here's a letter to the editor of The Age in response to yesterdays' attack on Prince Charles:

Prince of a man
IT WAS interesting to read Michael Shmith's gently ironic comment on Prince Charles's Australia Day remarks to an audience at Australia House in London (MelbourneLife, 31/1). It may be that there is a certain whimsy about the image that the Prince of Wales presents, but anyone who watched (as I did) his masterly delivery of the David Dimbleby lecture in 2009, could not fail to be impressed with his grasp of his subject (climate change) and with the wit and erudition he brought to such a vexed question. In any event, is it not some comfort to have, as our putative head of state, a man of humility and self-deprecating humour? A brief glimpse at the murderous regimes around the world reminds us of our good fortune in having a robust democracy supported and informed by a benign titular head.

David Morgan, Ivanhoe

The Prince and Mr Shmith

The Age would not be The Age, if not some editorial hack would turn up to discredit a pleasant event. The hack is Michael Shmith, whom The Age styled as “a staff writer”, but who was until recently a senior editor of The Age, and the event was The Prince of Wales‘ and The Duchess of Cornwall‘s visit of the Australian High Commission in London to mark Australia Day and pay tribute to those who had lost their lives in the Queensland floods.

"Thank heaven we can still make Charles chuckle at our character-building ways“, remarked Michael Shmith in today's Age, only to continue “the legendary regal wit of the-prince-who-really-wants-to-be-Neddy-Seagoon-but-no-one-has-the-courage-to-tell-him-he-isn't was well on display, attracting (according to The Age correspondent) ‘roars of laughter and an ovation from the gathering’

"'If you want to develop character, go to Australia.' This remark might have thrilled a room of 500 guests who thought the Prince of Wales was funnier than Mr Bean (there are points in common, after all), but I found it quaint,“ claimed Michael Shmith.

Michael Shmith loves to point out, that he is something of a "royal expert", when it comes to royal protocol:

"... I saw, when covering the Queen’s Australia tour five years ago..."

"... I once saw the late Princess Margaret informally mingling ..."

"... I remember a reception in Perth six years ago, when the prince [Charles] spoke wistfully.“

His article contained barely 670 words, but he could fiddle in three royal encounters. What a sacrifice this republican journalist must have endured, that he remembered them so well!

Michael Shmith could be a nice man in real life – his dislike for the Australian Royal Family is his personal choice. He should be spared to write on them. Nobody would ask a journalist who hates football, to cover sport events. And someone who finds tennis boring, would never be sent to report on a tournament. The same goes for the arts, museums or religious festivals - why send someone there, when he or she only suffers while writing on the matter? Only when it comes to royal events, The Age seems to be unable to find anyone among their staff and/or free lance writers who enjoys the royal pomp and cirstumances. Is among The Age's editorial staff not a single journalist who is able or willing to write an article or a report that is not part of a smear campaign?

Poor journalism, really poor journalism.

PS. It seems, the editorial staff is poor on foreign language skills. Why did no-one point out to Mr. Shmith that the equivalent of a "pommy bastard" used by rude French people on Germans would be "boches" and not "Bosch". Monsieur, redoublez la classe!

T r u e

This cartoon appeared in The Age today to ridicule the constitutional framework of Australia – but the RadicalRoyalist rather likes the idea.

More Australian stamps of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia can be found here.