A Royal visit for Quebec's 400th birthday celebrations

While the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper found it unwise to invite Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Canada, to celebrate Quebec's 400th birthday, the province will not be without a royal dignitary:

French Prince Jean, Duc de Vendôme, will be in Quebec to join in the city's birthday party. On his website Gens de France, Prince Jean posted the news that he will be in Quebec from 28th June to 6th July.

Le Prince Jean se rendra au Québec du 28 juin au 6 juillet et pour le 400ème anniversaire de la fondation de la ville. Le duc de Vendôme est invité par la ville de Québec.

Prince Jean is son and heir of Prince Henri, Comte de Paris, who is claimant to the French throne.

Of course it is only right that the descendent of the French kings who founded the American colonies should be present at the celebrations. It is equally not understandable that the Canadian Royal Family should not be represented other than by the Governor-General.

The non-invitation to Queen Elizabeth caused a stirr in the Canadian media, when it was first reported in December 2007:

CBC News December 10, 2007
"Montreal newspaper La Presse reported that the federal government is not inviting Queen Elizabeth to la vielle capitale' s birthday bash next summer because it would be too controversial. The newspaper report was based on federal documents obtained under access to information laws.

"The Quebec government said it was disappointed to hear the news because it thought an invitation should have been extended despite possible reprisals. Quebec hasn't ruled out the possibility of appealing the decision, said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier.

"'We told the Canadian government about our wish to have the Queen present at the 400th anniversary celebrations,' Pelletier told Radio-Canada, the CBC's French-language service.

"'We know there would be controversy if the Queen came to Quebec. But this controversy would be provoked by a minority of people, and we can't be at the mercy of these minorities, these individuals, who still have their gaze turned towards 1760.'"

-----------------------------
CTV.ca News Staff wrote:

"Canada's monarchists are upset at Ottawa for what they say is an 'insult' to the Queen, after she was left off the list for Quebec City's 400th birthday bash next year.

"Dignitaries from around the world will be in Quebec City next year to celebrate the city's birthday.

"But there are media reports that the Tories have vetoed a visit by the Queen apparently because it may upset soft nationalists and separatists in Quebec.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said that he doesn't understand why the Queen has been shut out of the ceremonies.

"'Given the people of Quebec City -- I'm sure -- want everyone to come and celebrate the magnificent 400th birthday, I don't know why anyone would want to exclude the Queen,' he said."

May Australia never end up like the USA

Is that what lies ahead of Australia should republicans have their way?

Harper's Magazine:
... one could argue that the American democratic experiment was at least in part an attempt to challenge this “reality,” to establish a political and legal culture from which would emerge, organically, a new sensibility: independent, unburdened by the protocols of class, skeptical of inherited truths. Willing to be disobedient. To moon the lord.

Alas, if that was the plan, it went sideways a long time ago. In today’s America, the majority is nothing if not impressed by power and fame (its legitimacy is irrelevant), nothing if not obedient. As for mooning the lord, the ass to the glass these days is more likely to be the lord’s, and our own posture toward it, well, something short of heroic. Worse yet, should someone decide to take offense, and suggest that it is not the lord’s place to act thusly, he will be set upon by the puckering multitude who will punish him for his impertinence.

At a White House reception a couple of years ago, President George Bush asked Senator-elect Jim Webb how things were going for his son, a Marine serving in Iraq. “I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb replied. “I didn’t ask you that,” the president shot back. “I asked you how your boy was doing.” ...

... Democracy, of course, is not an absolute but a relative value: “We’re not perfect,” the cry will sound, “but show us who is!” I’ll take a pass on perfection, but I’ll say this: when it comes to the egalitarian attitude democracy presupposes, the Brits, for all their wigged getups and parliamentary histrionics, have it all over us. It’s not just the formal, procedural differences between the two political cultures (the mandated brevity of the British election season, or the government’s strictures on how much money a candidate can spend) that cast us in a sad and diminished light; it’s the difference in spirit that lies behind, and informs, these distinctions.

In general, the Brits act as though the government is their business and they have every right to meddle in it. Americans, by and large, display no such self-assurance. To the contrary, we seem to believe, deep in our hearts, that the business of government is beyond our provenance. What accounts for the difference? My wife, whose family hails in part from England, has a theory: unlike us, the Brits don’t confuse their royalty with their civil servants, because they have both, clearly labeled. Acknowledging the universal desire to defer, they channel that desire, wisely, into the place where it can do the least harm, a kind of political sump. Americans, on the other hand, lacking the royal catch basin, are squeezed between pretense and practice. Though we continue to pay lip service to the myth of the independent American, we understand it as a fiction—nice for a Friday night with a pint of Ben & Jerry’s but about as relevant to today’s world as a butter churn. ...

Referendum in Tuvalu confirms Monarchy

In a referendum the people of Tuvalu have voted in favour of maintaining a constitutional monarchy. The referendum asked voters whether they wished to have a president as head of state.

As Radio Australia reported on 17th June, the result was a stunning 64.98% in favour of retaining Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Tuvalu, as Monarch.

Congratulations to the people of Tuvalu for making their stance clear. I hope this result will draw some attention to the Pacific island nation that is facing serious threats due to climate change and rising ocean levels.

Quality Journalism? You can’t mean The Age!
Saturday’s Age announced it already on the front page in capital letters: VICTORIA’S FIRST LADY.

But if you thought The Age would report on Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of Victoria, then you were wrong. The Age has no love lost for Victoria's Monarch and never reports anything (positive), about Her.

It wasn’t even the no. 2 lady of the state, they portrayed. The wife of Victorian Governor, Jan de Kretser, would certainly be worth a report. Probably The Age never looks on the Governor’s website, where it says: The Queen is head of the State of Victoria but the Governor ordinarily exercises the powers and functions of head of state.

Due to a lack of a Lieutnant-Governor in Victoria, Ms Rosemary McKenzie may be called Victoria’s Third Lady. However, The Age insisted on calling Premier John Brumby’s wife “Victoria's very private ‘First Lady’". Having no clue about state protocol is still a deplorable lack of knowledge and speaks volumes about the journalist who wrote the article, as well as the editor who approved it.

Can Australia afford an Emperor’s visit?
While visiting Japan Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his wife had an audience with the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko on 11th June. According to a newspaper report "Rudd invited the Emperor and the Empress to visit Australia … and extended the invitation also to the Heir to the throne, Crown Prince Naruhito, and Crown Princess Masako.” Not a single journalist seems to have noticed that Prime Minister Rudd was not entitled to invite the Japanese Emperor. It is most likely that he handed over the invitation of the Queen of Australia's representative, the Governor-General, since a head of state can only be invited by another head of state, not by the head of government. Kevin Rudd seems to follow the bad example of his predecessor, John Howard, who continuously sidelined the Governor-General.

One can only hope that the Prime Minister had consulted his republican backbenchers before inviting the royal guests, since recent visits by members of Royal Families were not welcomed by Labor MPs. Take Labor MP Daryl Melham as an example: "I don't begrudge looking after people, but what the royals cost is a bit over the top," he said in September 2006, after a report had revealed that the Queen’s and the Duke of Edinburgh six day stay in Australia had cost “just under $1.5 million”. $662,678 was spent on travel expenses, $81,800 on accommodation, $61,460 on security and a whopping $644,300 for "other expenses'', including entertainment. The same report put George Bush’s brief stay in Sydney as a comparison at $186,000.

Of course the comparison was not done by giving the real figures. A 24 hour stay of George Bush and his entourage in Germany that same year had cost € 20 million or ($ 28 million) and Australia could host the US president at the cheap rate of $186,000? 12,000 policemen shielded him away from the German public. Were there none in Sydney? It seems, no security bill was put up, and certainly no compensation was paid to shop owners who had to close their business for security reasons. Sydney Airport must have forgotten to hand in the bill for the landing strip that was damaged by the president’s Air Force One plane.

The three day visit of the Swedish King and Queen cost double the one day trip of the Chinese dictator-president Hu Jintao to Australia. Not unreasonable, it seems. But republicans cried foul.

Who’s to blame? The Royals, of course, if you follow the critics. The anti-Monarchy reflex makes you wonder if Australian republicans want to avoid any visit of Monarchs and heirs to the throne at all because they fear this might encourage the monarchist sentiment in Australia. “Only a republican visitor is a welcome visitor”, could be the motto.

However, Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko, Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako will be most welcome in Australia and for once the thrifty republicans should forget their ideological blindness and give the Imperial guests a hearty welcome, if only as a symbol of the long term reconciliation between Austalia and Japan.

Republicans should spare their angry red faces for the time when the Queen of Australia or another member of the Australian Royal Family will be on our soil.

The Crown protects our civic rights

Three republican opinion pieces in a row, that’s a new record even for Melbourne's daily newspaper The Age. But it demonstrates beyond doubt, how much energy can be set free by thinking about Queen’s Birthday. And a lot of thinking they must do, considering that the latest pro-republican author Christopher Scanlon conceded "the debate about whether Australia should become a republic has had about as much substance as an issue of New Weekly". And to no Monarchist’s surprise he found out: "Even supporters of the republic are hard pressed to explain the meaning of republicanism".

His remedy for the ailing republican movement in Australia is to turn towards "the much longer and richer tradition of republican ideas". Should you now expect any suggestion on how a republican system could improve the life of the ordinary Australian, then Christopher Scanlon leaves you clueless. "In the ideal republic, the greatest freedom is experienced not by Robinson Crusoe, but by a person living in a society where the exercise of power is checked by laws, and where everyone has equal ability to exercise these laws. For republicans, the goal is not only to ensure that arbitrary interference does not happen, but that the very capacity for arbitrary interference is removed."

You may wonder, what he really wants that isn’t already in force in Australia. What is he complaining about? "In recent years, though, the threat of arbitrary interference has grown. Proposed changes to telecommunications laws have sought to give police powers to intercept telephone calls without independent oversight. This has come on top of anti-terror laws that permit a person suspected of engaging in or aiding a terrorist attack to be held without charge for 48 hours." He is right in mentioning these appalling laws, but could he have missed, where all the ideas for the new laws came from? Hasn't he spotted the USA as the republican nation that declares war on everything and everyone? The great republic across the Pacific Ocean became independent in 1776, yet that republican superpower is responsible for the Guantanamo Bay prison system and the mockery of a judicial system that takes place there. The USA are at the top of the list of executions worldwide, barring the other republican superpower the People's (!) Republic (!) of China. But Christopher Scanion is not so much afraid of that sort of restriction of liberty rights for those unfortunate people who suffer under the republican death penalty, but of "arbitrary interference".

Surely he knows, who is demanding fingerprints from all travellers. The collected fingerprints from completely innocent people are kept indefinitely and nobody - except a few insiders - knows what happens to the data collected from millions of people. Even if you avoid going to the USA, you are subjected to US demands: The currently standardized biometrics used for the new type of passports with electronic identification systems, the facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris recognition are introduced worldwide due to USA pressure. Our freedom is not restricted because we enjoy having the Queen of Australia, but because republicans - with small and capital R - cannot collect enough data from us. Does Christopher Scanion really believe, an Australian president would do anything against that?

I wonder, what Christopher thinks about the increasing pressure from the US about Digital Rights Managment ie copyright controls to prevent fair use of copyrighted works and the extension of copyright from 50 to 75 years to ... who knows how long for the benefit of powerful "big media" (of which The Age is a part). Republics where big business set the tone are threatening us all.

I am equally opposed to “arbitrary interference” of any kind, as I wrote before on this blog and I would like to co-operate with Christopher Scanlon in fighting them back and put them, where they should belong: in the dustbin of outdates laws. But despite all efforts I cannot see how in these political fields any republic in the world is doing better than Australia. The points he raises have nothing to do with republicanism, Christopher Scanlon wants civic rights. In that case there is not difference between me as a Monarchist and him as a republican. I see my civic rights better protected by a Monarch than by an elected president who owes his allegiance to parties, pressure groups, his bankers and opinion polls.

Queen's Birthday Holiday
The Age, mouthpiece of the republicans in Victoria, did not succeed in surprising us. In the paper’s Queen’s Birthday holiday edition the editorial claimed, Australia should get rid of Pomp, circumstance and a right royal anachronism. But what other than grumpiness do you expect of a journalist, who has to work on a holiday? S/He hates it and s/he could not care less, if this holiday was to be abolished. Interestingly, The Age just wants to do away with the Queen's Birthday holiday without suggesting what other holiday should be given to the Australian working families. Yesterday Michael Cooney was a little bit more disingenuous, when he demanded - again in The Age - a "Kid's day". Who would dare to say no to that? No politician would like to be called "anti-children" or worse: "anti-working family"!

Indeed, as the depth of feeling accompanying Anzac Day seems to grow more profound each year with younger generations embracing the sacrifice of their forebears, says The Age's editorialist. Queen’s Birthday holiday should be one way to explain, why “their forebears” made the sacrifice of leaving Australia to fight on foreign shores. You may not like the term, but the men and women of the World War I era fought for King and country. They did not fight for the Asia-Pacific region, even if an Australian politician, who wants to spearhead the creation of an Asia-Pacific Union similar to the European Union by 2020, would have liked that. Will they tell us one day, the Great Asian Pacific republic was always the wish of the forebears, and it had nothing to do with their loyalty to the Monarch? The Age would be in the forefront to re-write history. It's the paper's daily agenda. This Queen's Birthday holiday opinion piece should be relegated to the same historical dustbin as most other editorials of The Age.

Republican wants to replace Queen’s Birthday Holiday with another shopping occasion
Queen’s Birthday Holiday is a sting in the flesh of the Australian republicans. Every year the second Monday in June (except Western Australia) this public holiday reminds them of the Australian Monarch. If this day would have no other purpose, this one would be enough reason to keep it in high esteem.

As could be expected, there were attacks on this oldest Australian holiday since the European settlement began. This year’s silliest suggestion came from Michael Cooney: “The first Monday in June should be a new public holiday: Kids' Day”. He published his idea in Melbourne’s Sunday Age, which misses no opportunity to attack the Queen of Australia.

Michael Cooney's opinion piece is utter nonsense. Having a Kid's Day would give shops and supermarkets just another opportunity for a sale promotion just like Mother's Day and Father's Day. The Sunday Age introduces Michael Cooney as policy director of the left-leaning think tank Per Capita. It makes me wonder, why someone with an anti-capitalist attitude should be the advocate of business’ interests. Business would certainly love to have a mid-year shopping occasion. Half way between Christmas Cooney’s “Kid’s Day” must have been on the wishlist of all supermarkets and entertainment parks.

Besides that: I don't have children, but I do have a Queen and I want to show Her proper respect. If you want to do something for children in Australia, why do you want to concentrate on ONE particular day? To forget them on 364 other days of the year?

What a pity, Michael Cooney is so unaware of the Australian connection to Queen's Birthday holiday. The day has been celebrated since 1788 when Governor Phillip declared a holiday to mark the birthday of King George III. Until 1936 it was held on the actual birthday of the monarch but after the death of King George V, in true Aussie fashion, it was decided to keep the convenient mid-year break.

The Queen's Birthday holiday is a celebration of Australia's oldest institution — the Australian Crown — which is now recognised by the High Court as a legal entity separate from the British and Canadian Crowns and is older than our state and federal parliaments, the public service, our court system, police and armed forces.

55 Years ago:
Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
For the Queen's 50th Coronation Jubilee the Australian Post issued the stamps shown above. Like all stamps giving reference to our sovereign, they were quickly sold out and are now precious collectors' items. This year's 55th coronation anniversary did not get as much attention as the Golden Jubilee one - very much as the Queen herself wanted it. Only in March this year, she cancelled a diamond wedding anniversary party, because of Britain's economic downturn. The party, for 60 close friends and relatives to celebrate her 60 years of marriage to Prince Philip, was due to take place at the Ritz in London. The Queen felt it would be "inappropriate", as the United Kingdom faced a recession. Although the party was planned and paid for by friends of the royal couple, she was thought it would have appeared insensitive at a time when people are tightening their belts.

The Queen was crowned on 2nd June 1953. This event was the focus for major pageantry and celebrations in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth. The files listed here illustrate some of the arrangements made by the Australian government in association with the event. Australia was invited to have representatives present at the ceremony itself and many celebrations in honour of the coronation occurred concurrently throughout Australia.

Amidst the official celebrations and ceremonies in London, 7 000 seats with a view of the coronation procession were allocated to Australians who would be in London for the event. Within Westminster Abbey itself, 250 seats were reserved for official Australian representatives. Within its official contingent, the Australian Government sent 250 representatives of the armed forces and seven parliamentary delegates to the coronation festivities.

Personal account of the Coronation by Harold Holt
Harold Holt [Australian Prime Minister from January 1966 to December 1967] and his wife Zara were in London for the duration of all the festivities arranged in conjunction with the coronation. On Wednesday, 27 May 1953, at one of the official pre coronation functions, Holt, the President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association made a speech addressed to the Queen. At the function itself, Holt sat to the right of the Queen, with the Duke of Edinburgh to her left. Despite his anxieties about his speech (‘I had to say [everything]… all in five minutes. An agony of the spirit for a politician accustomed to our own windy speech making.’) Holt called it ‘an unforgettable experience for me’.

These are celebration medals that were presented to Australians, awarded for attending, as an invited guest a Royal Occasion.

More on the medals on the digger history and on the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

85th Birthday Anniversary of the Chogyal of Sikkim

This spring the world’s attention was drawn to Tibet, where on 10th March this year the people commemorated the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan upheaval against the Chinese occupation. The protests spread from Tibet across the whole world and along the route of the torch relay for this year’s Olympic games people demanded: “Free Tibet!”.

In the Southern part of the Himalaya another occupied territory did not attract any attention at all: Sikkim. The Kingdom which had defended its independence for 300 years against powerful neighbours was annexed by India in April 1975 and became the 22nd state of the Indian Union. The 85th birthday of the 12th Chogyal of Sikkim gives me the opportunity to focus on the fate of the tiny Himalaya Kingdom.

Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal, Twelfth Consecrated Ruler of Sikkim, was born in Sikkim’s capital Gangtok on 22nd May 1923. The Denzong Chogyal was the second son of the late illustrious Chogyal Sir Tashi Namgyal, who will always be remembered as Sikkim’s gracious, enlightened and benevolent ruler.
In 1935 he continued his studies at St. Joseph’s College, Darjeeling, and completed his studies at Bishop Cotton School, Simla, in 1941.

As the Heir Apparent, Gyalsay Palden Thondup Namgyal undertook the Indian Civil Service Training Course at Dehra Dun in 1942 and thereafter returned to Sikkim to look after the administration so that the needs of the people could be taken care of.

Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal was keenly alive to the needs of the people and as Heir Apparent had exercised direct personal supervision over various departments of the government of Sikkim. He was his father’s adviser on external affairs and led the Sikkim team, which negotiated the Treaty with India in 1949-1950. By contract Sikkim became India’s “protectorate” on 5th December 1950, not unlike Nepal and Bhutan that were forced to sign similar treaties after the British had left the subcontinent. So far the other two Kingdoms could maintain their independence. If Nepal will be able to keep the two greedy neighbours outside the borders should the country be declared a republic, is in doubts.

The Chogyal was connected with a number of cultural and academic bodies in Sikkim, India and abroad. He had been the President of the Mahabodhi Society of India since 1953 and he led the Sikkim delegation to the Sixth Buddhist Council that was held in Burma in 1954. He participated in the 2500 Buddha Jayanti Celebrations in India in 1956, and was the only member of the Working Committee from Sikkim. In March 1959 he attended the 2500 Buddha Jayanti Conference in Japan and represented Sikkim at the Sixth World Fellowship of Buddhists conference in Cambodia in 1961. In 1958, under the patronage of Maharaja Sir Tashi Namgyal, he set up a centre for Mahayana and Tibetan studies at Gangtok , and this world famous centre bears the name of “Namgyal Institute of Tibetology.”

In August 1950, he married Sangey Deki, daughter of Yapshi Samdu Phodrang of Tibet. Sangey died in June 1957. In March 1963 he married Hope Cooke, grand daughter and ward of Mr. and Mrs. Winchester Noyes of the United States of America, which drew a huge media attention to the tiny Kingdom. The Chogyal had three children from his first wife, namely Tenzing, Wangchuk and Yangchen. His second wife bore him Palden and Hope. After his father’s death, Palden was crowned as the Twelfth Chogyal of Sikkim on 4th April 1965. (Please note the photo, where his US-born wife Hope Cooke is sitting at his right on a lower throne.)

Among the honours and distinction the Chogyal held were: The Order of the British Empire (1947), Padma Vibushan, India (1954) and Commander de l’Ordre de l’Étoile Noire, France (1956).

The Indian invasion
Small numbers of Nepalese had been migrating to Sikkim from about the 15th century, but it was only under the British that the Nepalese began entering Sikkim in great numbers, entirely upsetting the traditional ethnic balance of Sikkim. This social engineering was done by the British to weaken the traditional Lepchas – Bhutia strength. The Eleventh Chogyal and representatives of two of Sikkim’s largest parties, the Sikkim State Congress and the Sikkim National Party, agreed in May 1951to a parity formula . According to this formula, the seats in the state council were to be divided equally between the Bhutia-Lepcha group, and the Nepalese. The Sikkim State Council was then institute in 1953.

In April 1973, after making allegations that elections had been rigged, ethnic Nepali protested in front of the King's palace, demanding civil rights and the sidelining or even removal of what they called the "feudal" monarchy. Palden Thondup Namgyal, the King of Sikkim, ultimately gave in and signed an agreement on 8th May 1973.

The document called on India to provide a chief executive, and to hold elections for an assembly. The agreement was the first step in the disappearance of the Kingdom of Sikkim. The inhabitants of the Kingdom are in no doubt that the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her local agents fomented the unrest. Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial and imperialist attitudes were are a major concern in the 70s. Asked in 1998 by the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, why the Sikkimese army did not resist the Indian invasion, a former captain of Sikkim's army replied: "The Indians soldiers had joined the army because they were hungry and received a warm meal; to shoot at them would not have been in accordance with our Buddhist faith. We knew four days in advance about the invasion, but the King had ordered not to fight."

In 1975, Sikkim’s Prime Minister “appealed” to the Indian Parliament for representation and change of Sikkim's status to a state of India. In April 1975 the Indian army moved into Sikkim, seizing the capital city of Gangtok, disarming the Palace Guards and putting the Chogyal under house arrest.
A “referendum” was held in which 97.5% [!] of the votes cast (or counted!) agreed to join the Indian Union. China did not recognize India’s occupation of Sikkim until 2003, which led to an improvement in the Sino-Indian relations. In return, India announced its official recognition of Tibet as an integrated part of China.

The Chogyal never renounced his throne and hoped till the end that justice would win.

On 29th January 1982 Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal died a heartbroken man from cancer in New York. His second son Wangchuk inherited the rights to the throne after the Chogyal's eldest son Crown Prince Tenzin had died in a car accident on 11th March 1978.

King Constantine II's portrait enjoys a prominent place in the Melburnian home of a Royalist Greek family.

The Greek Royalist Association of Australia
One of the countless republican myths is that the Australian Monarchy is only supported by British immigrants and Anglophile Australians. Nothing could be more wrong than that. Multiculturalism is flourishing among Monarchists in Australia. The motto could be: Join the Monarchist groups and learn about Australia’s diversity!

One example is The Greek Royalist Association of Australia that assembles the loyalist Greeks in Australia. Or as their website says: “An association of Greeks and Philhellenes who support the principle of Monarchy.”

To honour the feast day of Saints Constantine and Helena Greek Royalists – and a couple of Philhellenes – gathered on 18th May 2008 to listen to a talk on ‘His Majesty King Paul and His Legacy’. John Fanarakis, who originates from one of the Dodekanes Islands, remembered his first encounter with King Pavlos (1901-1964) and praised the political stability Greece enjoyed during the King’s 17 years of reign. It came to an abrupt end in 1964 when the King died of lung cancer.

The photo shows King Constantine and Queen Anne Marie dancing with Greek soldiers. The poem is dedicated to "the King over the waters".

This pamphlet is available from the Greek Royalist Association of Australia.

Monarchists are the better Democrats
Among the Australian media The Epoch Times is certainly not one of the most important newspapers. With its Falun Gong background and its editorial spearhead against the Chinese Communist Party the weekly is certainly a unique project. On one topic, however, there is no difference to other Australian newspapers and electronic media: It is strongly biased against the Australian Monarchy and in favour of “a” republic.

In his article Republic gets “Thumbs up”, but so does the Queen, author Shar Adams assumes every Australian – or nearly every Australian – would follow the republican bandwagon once an unconstitutional plebiscite with a non-binding vote might be called and “a resulting ‘yes’ vote would then initiate a referendum for 2013 that would decide the model”.

And what, may I ask, if the Australian people will once again vote NO?

There is no plan B.
Republicans - and Shar Adams included – only draw their future ideas in connection with a republic: Professor Clive Bean, head of the School of Humanities at Queensland's University of Technology: "When the process does get under way, one of the most significant factors will be the leadership shown by the Opposition because when we go to a referendum on the matter, which we will have to do at some stage, referendums are easy to defeat if both sides of Parliament aren't in favour of them. With John Howard's departure, the balance of opinion within the hierarchy of the Liberal Party I think will probably be much more in favour of a republic so it may well be that they will get in behind it, but that may well depend on the details for the model and how the process is presented."

And The Epoch Times rejoices: “Leader of the Opposition Brendan Nelson has indicated he will bow to popular consensus, but that he is personally happy keeping things as they are.

The Epoch Times equally presumes times would work in favour of “a” republic, when Major General Jeffery will be replaced in September this year by Australia's first female viceroy, Quentin Bryce, ”who is considered to be a strong supporter of an Australian republic” pretends Shar Adams, ignoring the fact that she is an outspoken supporter of the present Constitutional Monarchy.

Here we go again: two declared Monarchists, Brendan Nelson and Quentin Bryce, are claimed by the republicans. They may not be republicans yet, but who could resist these charming republicans? Or whatever these anti-monarchists think of themselves and their convictions.

Republicans want the whole country therefore cannot tolerate someone being a Monarchist. Of course it is good practice for a democrat to accept a majority rule and a vote in a referendum has to be accepted by every democrat worth that term. Certainly Brendan Nelson would do. But would the republicans accept another referendum that favours the Australian Monarchy? Or let’s put it the other way round: How many chances would Monarchists get should a referendum be won by republicans? Would there be a re-run in ten years time to give the people back the Monarchy should opinion polls show a massive demand for a Monarchy?

You may give the answer yourself.

Even Her Majesty is more of a true democrat than most republicans that publish in the Australian media. In March 2000 Her Majesty said in Australia:

I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise.

I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the Constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for the last 48 years. It is my duty to remain true to the interests of Australia and all Australians as we enter the 21st century. That is my duty. It is also my privilege and my pleasure.

Well spoken, Your Majesty.

Public or re-public? - That is the Question
Considering that the adherents of a republic rarely know what they want instead of the Monarchy and have they hardly ever wasted a thought on what “republic” really means. The origin of the term is “res publica” or the "common cause".

Now have a look, what our republicans are doing: They sell the common good and privatise public property. To be more precise: They privatise the profit, but socialise the deficits.

The public transport in Melbourne is a good example. Transport Minister Lynne Kosky, I am sure a life long republican just like the present Prime Minister, publicly said she is not interested in running the public transport system in Victoria. Her recent tour of public transport in Europe was about private deals not public benefit. In fact the much praised public commission model for transport in Zürich was rejected out of hand by Mrs Kosky. Far better to do deals protected by “commercial–in–confidence” secrecy.

Do you recall Mr. Iemma, the man who would sell The Man from Snowy River? (He was behind the plan to sell off the Snowy River Power scheme). Now New South Welsh Premier, Morris Iemma, despite promising before the last state election not to privatise the NSW electricity system, is in a tussle with the NSW union movement who actually expected him to keep his promise. This has put Emperor Kev I in a difficult position, caught between the powerful NSW right wing and the equally powerful NSW union movement. Oh! as for the public ... they don’t even get a look in.

Mr Iemma and Mr Rudd may be republicans but they cannot privatise public assets fast enough. More deals to be done behind closed doors … even the promise not to privatise the power system was made behind closed doors between the Union and Mr Iemma.

The public were never and are not part of the discussions in any way.

PPP = private profit preferred …

If you cannot trust the public service and the public assets to the politicians, why would you give them total power by making one of them president of a republic? To whom would they sell the country?

Why wasn't the Queen invited to Villers-Bretonneux?


What a difference one person can make. Almost exactly to the day a year ago the Canadians commemorated their war dead at Vimy. On 9th April 2007 a monument was re-dedicated to remember the bitter Battle of Vimy Ridge in which more than 3,500 Canadian soldiers died. To quote a report: Although it was the first day of the official part of the presidential campaign in France, the main TV news broadcast from France 2 in Paris, rebroadcast by SBS in Australia on Tuesday morning, 10 April 2007, began with film of what the presenter called a rare event: Queen Elizabeth II was on the soil of France.

He went on to describe her appearance was “en tant que souveraine du Canada”. Her Majesty was in France, as Queen of Canada, to preside over the ceremonies to rededicate the great Canadian Memorial of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, fought ninety years ago. The refurbished memorial was originally dedicated by King Edward VIII, as King of Canada, and it stands on what will forever be Canadian land, a mark of the gratitude France bears for Canada for that great victory.

In the presence of over 15,000 Canadians, The Queen, in English and in French, paid tribute to the Canadians who took the ridge, a German stronghold which she said had become a "symbol of futility and despair". "It was a stunning victory," she said. "In capturing this formidable objective, the Canadian Corps transformed Vimy Ridge from a symbol of despair into a source of inspiration. After two-and-a half years of deadly stalemate, it now seemed possible that the Allies would prevail and peace might one day be restored".

Nothing of this kind took place, when on ANZAC Day 2008 the Australians commemorated their war dead. The Age: It was the first Anzac Day dawn service in the Somme, an official ceremony that many hope will carry on in tandem with the Gallipoli tradition — and remind Australians of the 46,000 compatriots who fought and died on the Western Front. …
At dawn yesterday, … 3000 Australian men and women joined their French brothers and sisters on a Somme hilltop to keep the promise made by a long-dead mayor. …
Alan Griffin, Kevin Rudd's … Veterans' Affairs Minister, made clear to the crowd the need for a national realignment of understanding: "It must be said that our strong connection with the Anzacs at Gallipoli has, over the years, overshadowed our commemoration of the Australians who gave so much on the Western Front."

Unlike last year there was no Queen. Obviously the Queen of Australia was not invited to address the people who had gathered in Villers-Bretonneux. There was no Prime Minister, neither an Australian, nor French, and there was hardly any media coverage, except by the Australian media. The French evening news of France 2 that had so prominently reported on the Queen of Canada’s speech, did not even mention that there was an Australian commemoration gathering.

The BBC last year reported: The Queen has paid tribute to thousands of Canadian troops who lost their lives in World War I as she unveiled a restored monument in France. The memorial remembers the bitter Battle of Vimy Ridge in which more than 3,500 Canadian soldiers died. She was joined at the memorial, near Lille, by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin. The ceremony featured prayers, the Last Post and a minute's silence. And this year? The BBC followed their French colleagues’ example and ignored the Australians.

What a difference a person makes. Had the Australian government invited the Queen of Australia to lead the commemoration, it would have received the attention that the war dead deserved. After all: many, if not most of them, died for King and Country. Even if the Australian republicans deny this fact, it remains deep in the heart of the First World War.

The Australia of the 21st century is a Monarchy
"The Australia of the 21st century will be a republic," Prime Minister Rudd told the ABC's 7.30 Report on Monday, 21st April on Her Majesty's 82nd Birthday. Mr Rudd told Kerry O'Brian he would proceed slowly.

92 Years of the 21st century are left, that gives the Prime Minister plenty of time to consider his options. But his threat will hang over us for these 92 years, since he may have the hope that by the turn of the century one of his granddaughters might be the first president of "an" [undefined] Australian republic. Meanwhile republicans will think on the best possible way to achieve their dream. How many referenda will it take?

Australia will be a republic within two years if delegates to the 2020 summit in Canberra have their way.

But what, if they fail again in 2010? Will they launch another offensive in 2013? Have a referendum with every federal election until one day one referendum might get the result they want? Or will they wait for the death of Her Majesty, as the old republican activist Malcolm Turnbull advised them?

What about the idea to make the Monarchy in Australia more approachable, more relevant and more visible to the people? It is not Her Majesty's fault that neither she nor another member of our Royal Family don't spend more time on the 5th continent. The Queen acts on Her - Australian federal and state - ministers' advice.

In between the referenda the republicans could think about the flag they might like to give the Australian republic. Here is a suggestion, which would be a suitable symbolism of the republic's outlook.


After all, isn't the purpose of the change "to get rid of the old colonial ties" and replace the Union Jack with something more appropriate? Critics may argue that Queensland might be overrepresented in the new republic's flag, but we should honour the efforts especially one Queenslander puts into the "republic question".

Please keep off the "Astroturf"


Grassroots community groups help ordinary citizens, pressure governments and frame debates.

Where would we be if groups such as the National Trust or anti-pollution groups had not fought vested interests in the 1960s and 1970s to protect our historic buildings or environment.

But a new game is afoot ... so-called "astroturfing".

Astroturf is an artificial grass and astroturf groups are artificial "grassroots" groups set up to push an business or political group's agenda while pretending to be independent or community group.

Such astroturf groups are everywhere these days. You see them quoted in the newspapers and they attend conferences such as Mr Rudd's 2020 Summit pretending to be the voice of the people, but actually pushing their backer's agenda.

Such groups as Get Up! ... A group that is officially unaligned but which had 118 delegates out of the 1000 summiteers at that 2020 Summit. Piers Akerman: "Incredibly, 118 of the chosen delegates are GetUp! members, including our Executive Director Brett Solomon." He gained fame for his extraordinary performance at the Summit: “Is anyone actually going to argue that we shouldn't be a republic?” summiteer Brett Solomon of grassroots political movement GetUp asked the 100 delegates in the summit's governance session. One lonely figure shot up a defiant hand, prompting laughter around the room. A remarkable way to deal with a differing opinion, which speaks volumes for his respect for people having a dissenting point of view.

It may be unaligned (which i doubt), but it is stridently pro Kevin and anti-monarchy. It has all the signs of being an ALP astroturf group!

Beware of "grassroots" groups that seem to be little more than fronts for political or business interests and pretending to represent the community.

The whole 2020 Summit seems to have been the ultimate astroturfing exercise ... a group supposedly representing the people of Australia but in fact hand crafted to ensure a predictable outcome.

All they could demonstrate was that their ability to organise a vote was more advanced than that of the Monarchists. They achieved a one hundred precent vote in favour of "a" republic at the Summit, which is ridiculous when opinion polls show that their support base in the population is just 45 percent.

However, their performance was a wakeup call for the Monarchists. The loyal supporters could certainly learn from the grassroot skills of the republicans of this country who like so much signing their posts with "Viva la révolution!". In doing so they not only mix Spanish and French in one senctence, but also show how little they know about the Australians.

Rudd's Brave New World for Australia


That is what they always wanted: an unanimous vote for “a” republic. Australian republicans have never admitted their defeat in the 1999 referendum, when 55 percent of the Australian people said NO to their republican model.

Instead they accused John Howard of having “rigged” the referendum. But nobody knows better what "rigging" means than republicans. With republican politicians now in power in Canberra as well as in the other capital cities, they can show their true colours. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wanted “Australia’s best and brightest” at the 2020 Summit this weekend. It is obvious, that the organisers considered only republicans as good and bright enough to get an invitation. No-one of the victorious No camp was considered worthy to be among the 1000 participants. Oh, wrong, ONE woman was a Monarchist. The republic motion was passed by 99.9 percent. What a travestie to a real debate.

“Is anyone actually going to argue that we shouldn't be a republic?” summiteer Brett Solomon of grassroots political movement GetUp asked the 100 delegates in the summit's governance session.
One lonely figure shot up a defiant hand, prompting laughter around the room.

What else can you expect from a handpicked audience to which Monarchists weren’t invited. Likeminded masses cannot accept dissent. This is the true face of the republic. Hysteria and a totalitarian approach to people who hold a different opinion. They are ridiculed away, they have to disappear from the scene, they don’t exist anymore.

It is good to know that at present not a hysterical audience at a summit of unelected non-delegates decide on Australia’s future, but the Australian people have to approve changes to our Constitution. And – so far – we don’t know, which model should replace our Australian Monarchy. Monarchists cannot be excluded from campaigning for the Monarchy. It s clearer then ever: Freedom wears a Crown.

New Governor-General a declared Monarchist
I know it sounds a bit odd, but the present Governor of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, whom the Queen will soon appoint as Her Governor-General in Australia, has described herself as a Monarchist. "I have a great admiration for the monarch and I do value and respect our democratic system of government," she said according to The Age.

In these days, when the buzzing republicans jump from one corner of their media offices to the next to deliver their recycled articles, such a sentence seems to come from outer space. Should not everybody who represents the Queen of Australia and swears the Oath of Allegiance to Her, be a loyal servant of the Crown? Appointments of state governors in recent years seemed to go the other way with the annointed candidate making very doubtful allegations about their loyalty.

With republicans now heading the federal as well as state governments it was the media’s hope that the new governor-general would be one from the republican mould, one who would give the coup de grace to the institution that is so dear to the Australian people that they voted in 1999 to retain the Monarchy.

Republicans may not like to be reminded of this fact, but nearly 55 pc said No to the proposed republican model. And since this is Australia and not the Republic of Zimbabwe nor the People's Republic of Bielarus, nor the People's Republic of China, claiming the referendum was rigged, is offensive. A question was put on the ballot papers, which explicitly highlighted the proposed changes: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
How can anybody claim the question was too difficult?

What will the republicans do when the next referendum fails to deliver their republic - have a regular vote every five years? Recent opinion polls may please republicans, but they also indicate that it will be an uphill battle to destroy the Crown of Australia. The republicans may have the full support of the media, what they haven't won is the referendum.

Her Majesty, World Citizen

One of the republicans' main objections to the Monarchy is their claim that we don't have an “Australian head of state”. Constitutional Monarchists say that we do indeed have an “Australian head of state” – the Governor General - and that the Queen is the Australian sovereign. This definition is, of course, rejected by republicans for it would discredit their effort to abolish the Monarchy.

I on the other hand, want to point out that the Queen is not a foreigner, but an Australian. She is also Canadian, Barbadian, Jamaican, Scottish, Irish, English and even French, when one considers her status as Duke of Normandy (for the Channel Islands).

She may not have an Australian passport – in fact, I doubt that she has a passport at all, not even a British one - but she has served this country since ascending to the throne. She is as free a person, as we once were and will never be again.

The Queen embodies the time, when everybody could travel without a passport. Before World War I travellers on the Orient Express could board a train in Istanbul and get off the train in Calais to board a ship to Britain without visa and passports. A passport was a request to assist and protect the bearer of the passport. Today travel documents are become high tech instruments, but not to make travelling easier or more convenient, but to control the passport holder and restrict our free movement. The currently standardized biometrics used for the new type of passports with electronic identification systems are facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris recognition. A biometric identifier held on an electronic chip gives those who can read the data total access to the stored information. Those who issue these new passports give the illusion they could prevent terrorist attacks. In fact they give total control of all our movements. Passport holders are constantly watched and monitored but for what real purpose?

Does this give the Queen a privilege she should not have? On the contrary: Her Majesty not being a passport holder is a reminder to politicians – and in fact to all of us – that we should resist electronic documents of all sorts. We should aim to get the same freedom that Her Majesty still enjoys. As I said: She embodies this freedom.

Passports don’t prove anything. Having the passport of a certain country does not mean that you are a citizen who contributes in a positive way to the society that issued the passport. It just states that the passport was issued by a certain country, how you received this little booklet is of no importance. You may have received it because your parent(s) belonged to this state, you may have been naturalised, you may have been forced to accept it, because you lost your home country and fled to the new one, giving you no choice, but to accept it. However, you may have bought your way into the country that issued the passport either by bribing officials or by promising to “invest money” in your new country. And certainly there are those who use – false – passports to achieve something they would not be able to do with another passport. Does your passport show that you render a special loyalty to the state that issued the passport? Also, this piece of paper can give no proof for that.

The Queen of Australia may not have an Australian passport, but Her loyalty towards Australia has never been in doubt. The Queen represents the type of international citizen that politicians around the world resent.


The biometric passport has an updated design since its first launch and additional security features. The updated features include pages with intricate designs, complex watermarks and a chip antenna.

Monarchists promise fight over republic

The headline of an AAP article was prominently placed on the opening site of
Yahoo!7News

The news agency referred to a statement of Prof. David Flint AM, which he had sent out on 8th April:
Debate gerrymandered

...no debate due to the gerrymander...
“The media has a vested interest in change - change equates to news and news is the life blood of the media,” declared Paul Kelly as editor-in chief of The Australian in 1993 when he was addressing a forum on constitutional change.

Having extracted some sort of commitment to some republican debate, the Australian media were beside themselves the day after the Prime Minister’s audience with The Queen.

Over a photograph of The Queen and Mr Rudd, the front page of the print version of The Australian, 8 April, 2008 carried this headline “Rudd to push debate on republic”.

The Sydney Morning Herald, again only in the print version, tucked the story with the photograph on the fourth page under this line, “Rudd raises republic as he sets off to see Queen.”

We suppose this was done discreetly in case anyone thought the Herald was returning to the monarchism of its long distant youth.

But what had the PM said?. There was some personal testimony to “lifelong republicanism” - as though it were some sort of genetic disorder.

Then he welcomed a “debate” this year. But that won’t be at the 2020 Summit - the republican gerrymander there would leave old style Queensland politicians – from both sides –green with envy. There will be no debate, just republican monologues there, except of course for the delightful sole monarchist the Hon. Helen Sham Ho.

In any event the PM said that the government “would be looking at how that debate develops.”

We have three pieces of advice to the Prime Minister.

First, please don’t refer to “the” republic as you did in London. Since the failure of the Keating-Turnbull model , the republicans still haven’t worked out what sort of republic they want. So it’s still “a” republic, that is, any sort of vague undefined republic.

Really, Prime Minister, couldn’t you get these republicans to at least say what they want?

Second, remember there is no interest in this among the rank and file. Labor voting electorates were among the strongest No voters in 1999.

Third, we promise you a fight of monumental proportions to keep our constitutional system and our flag. Don’t underestimate us, Mr Prime Minister – on this we are more in touch with the people.

Fourth, it would be an act of gross financial delinquency to spend one more cent of taxpayer’ funds on this.

No more money should be diverted from schools, hospitals and water to subsidise the republicans in this folly.

And while they are at it, the republicans might also work out some reason why the issue should be re-opened. They’ll need to do better than the editor of The (Adelaide) Advertiser who said among the reasons were that India, China and Australia were richer, and then there was the outrage of 9/11. We still do not see the connection.

Seriously, if the vote had gone the other way in 1999, does anyone think we would get another bite at the cherry.

We’d be ridiculed if we argued that.

Brendan Nelson: Living costs more important than republic
At least someone got it right. In an ABC interview.
Federal Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson said he is against Australia becoming a republic and does not think it should be on the political agenda. "I mean the real priorities at the moment are petrol, groceries and home loan interest rates and making sure small business can survive."

And as someone who is depending on public transport, I should add that the misery of the train service is appalling and cries for an immediate solution. The agony of Melbourne's public transport is effecting hundreds of thousands of people while the absence of an Australian republic means, a millionaire is denied buying his/her way into the job.

The recent press speculation and statements of Mr Rudd regarding the possibility of an Australian republic are merely the latest round of the ongoing debate fostered for its own reasons by factions within the Labor party (especially as a diversionary tactic) and within a group that sees itself as an intellectual “elite”.

But like Brendan Nelson I am a Royalist and a Constitutional Monarchist not out of some nostalgic love of a long gone British Empire, but for the simple fact that a Constitutional Monarch provides a stable and bipartisan head of state as well a sense of continuity that republican forms of government struggle to find.

The media seems determined to portray Monarchists as old fashioned and worse just old fuddy duddies whereas in fact the polls show consistently that the core group for republicans are 30-40 year old males whilst the Monarchy has a greater level of support amongst a wider demographic.

The Queen of Australia has been on the throne for 56 years.

Kevin Rudd is a republican – Where’s the surprise?
On the day when the Australian Prime Minister was to have an audience with Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Australia, the media down under could not help themselves reprinting the bits of a BBC interview, in which Rudd answered questions concerning a (!) republic. “I am sure we will get to it in due season," he said in response to persistent questioning in a BBC interview. Asked whether he would be disappointed if he ended his term in office without Australia becoming a republic, Mr Rudd said his party had long been committed to that outcome.
"That remains unchanged," he said. "What I also said prior to the last election is that for us this is not a top-order priority." The Age

Republicanism was included in the ALP’s platform at the 1991 national conference, the chairman observing that the motion had been carried without enthusiasm. Nobody expected Labor to revise their platform after the republican’s defeat at the 1999 referendum, however, not everything that is written into a platform has to become political reality. The Swedish Social Democrats wrote the demand for the abolition of the Monarchy into their platform in the 1920s, instead, every Swedish Prime Minister ever since had good working relations with the highly respected Swedish Kings. There was neither the “popular demand” for a republic, nor the need to abolish the Crown.

The same applies to Australia. With the latest opinion polls showing only 45 p.c. of the Australians want “a” republic, the Kevin Rudd senses that another push for “a” republic in Australia is doomed to fail.

Party policy and policy for the interests of the country and the people are not necessarily the same. Therefore the non-partisan institution of the Monarchy is invaluable. Good to know, that Her Majesty’s Australian Prime Minister does not rush to give into pressure from lobbyists and partisan advocates of “a” republic.

More appalling than Kevin Rudd’s answers were the BBC’s questions, which The Age called “persistent”. Was the reporter trying to create a scoop? Everybody knows the Australian Prime Minister’s position in the republic discussion. Surely the interviewer would have read all his statements in preparing for the interview. Why this stubborn insistence on this question?

King Simeon as EU-president?
This weekend Spanish news reported about the possibility of King Simeon II of the Bulgarians becoming the EU's first permanent president.(http://www.monarquiaconfidencial.com/pg_Articulo.aspx?IdObjeto=301). The King who in 1943 succeeded his father, Tsar Boris III, to the throne and who has also served his country as Prime Minister (2001/05) is a potential candidate like Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair or former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.
Should the new treaty of Lisbon which was signed in December 2007 in the Portuguese capital be ratified this year by all 27 EU members by 1st January 2009 a permanent “EU president” will replace the rotating presidency. So far, every half a year one EU member state assumes the presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU).

The person holding the new office will be appointed by the European Council for a term of 30 months, with the possibility of a second term.

More than any politician King Simeon II of the Bulgarians would be qualified to hold this office. As a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg he is related to all European Royal Houses, he speaks seven languages fluently, is above party lines and had experienced the political bargaining business when he was Bulgarian Prime Minister.

Above all: The King’s candidacy could be the only way to prevent the EU going irreversibly the republican way.

The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe, although the EU Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Despite these facts British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, insisted that the Treaty of Lisbon was shorn of all constitutional content and that it preserved key aspects of British sovereignty.

The Christian Science Monitor in its March 24, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0324/p09s01-coop.html said:
“With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions. Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums.”

All hopes rest in the King – as so often.

Two presidents celebrate the Portuguese King's arrival in Brazil 200 years ago

Somehow it is unreal that two presidents join hands to celebrate the arrival of a royal court 200 years ago. But this event took place in Brazil. The Portuguese President Aníbal Cavaco Silva and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, met on Saturday 8th March 2008 to commemorate the transfer of the Portuguese court and cabinet to Rio de Janeiro.

In 1807 Prince Regent Dom João, later King João VI, had resisted the invasion of French troops into his country. But the Portuguese forces were no match for Emperor Napoléon I. The Portuguese government set sail for Bahia in the Portuguese colony Brazil. They reached the colony’s capital Rio de Janeiro on 8th March 1808 and set up court in the new world. After the defeat of Napoléon the Regent proclaimed “the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarve”. After the death of Queen Mary I in 1816, for whom he had acted as regent for nearly two decades, he was crowned in Brazil King João VI of Portugal and Dom João I of Brazil.

His eldest son and heir, Dom Pedro (1798-1834) was left behind in Brazil as regent, when King João VI left for Portugal in 1821. Dom Pedro led the independence movement of the country and proclaimed Brazil’s independence on 22nd September 1822. He was proclaimed Emperor on his 24th Birthday, 24th October 1822, and was crowned on 1st December 1822.


Brazil lost its Monarchy in a military coup in 1889, a combined operation of power hungry officers and rich landlords who resented that the Regent, Crown Princess Isabel, had abolished slavery. Only in 1993 did the people get the opportunity to say in a referendum if they wanted their Monarchy back. 6 840 551 Brazilians cast their vote in favour of the Monarchy, the republican system won, but was actually supported by only 49.2 percent of the votes cast.

The bi-centenary celebrations also had a royal touch. The Portuguese and the Brazilian descendents of King João VI were present in Rio de Janeiro to commemorate the arrival of the Portuguese court in 1808. Duke Dom Duarte Pio, Head of the Royal House of Bragança and next in line to the Portuguese Throne, attended mass in exactly the same Church - Igreja do Rosário dos Homens Pretos -, where his great great grandfather went on his arrival in Rio de Janeiro to attend the Te Deum. Dom Duarte there met his distant cousin, Dom Luiz of Orléans-Bragança, whose great-great-great-grandfather was equally King João VI, who could be Brazil's Emperor should the people prefer the Monarchy to a republic.More photos

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

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

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

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

A photo says more than a thousand words
Every republic has the president it deserves. Sarkozy may grow with time.

Republic in Action
France has come a huge step closer to Bonapartism, this time in disguise of Sarkozysm. The new emperor’s son, Jean Sarkozy, staged a coup against the head of the ruling UMP in Neuilly-sur-Seine, David Martinon, just four weeks before the French local elections. David Martinon is not just anybody, but spokesman of the Elysée Palace, where Jean’s dad happens to be residing as president. And Neuilly is not any part of Paris, but the richest and considered the most “chic”, where Nicolas Sarkozy started his political career. Young Jean looks to be a little bit young to become Mayor of Neuilly, but 21 may be the right age for the Prince Impérial to stretch his wings.

David Martinon misjudged the court of l’empereur Sarkozy. Being considered close to the president’s ex-wife, Cécilia Sarkozy, Martinon fell out of grace at the palace and had to pay the price for bad opinion polls. Since an early honeymoon after he was elected in May 2007, when 68 percent approved of M. Sarkozy, the polls plummeted further and further. This month Sarkozy's approval rating had fallen to its lowest point since he was elected. Pollster IPSOS said it had fallen 10 points to 39 per cent, while rival CSA said it had dropped six points to 42 per cent. Even in the UMP’s stronghold Neuilly-sur-Seine opinion polls saw a rival list of candidates ahead of the president’s party.

Last Sunday evening Nicolas Sakozy tried to sound like a statesman and addressed the nation explaining why it was perfectly alright that the French people had no say in the Lisbon Treaty. The new EU treaty was signed on 13th December 2007 in the Portuguese capital and is the EU’s answer to the refusal of the French and Dutch voters to accept the EU Constitution. The new treaty was passed by the French Assembly and the Senate last week and will become effective on 14th February. Sarkozy put it plainly: He had promised the French people in his election manifesto that he would have a new treaty passed by parliament rather than holding a referendum with uncertain outcome. He kept this election promise. He did not promise more democracy, but “reforms”. Change is all that matters. The local elections on 9th March, which he styled a “national test”, may bring a result he will not like.

The French president shows all signs of a politician who overrates his ego. He might soon face the people whom he did not dare to ask about their approval to the new EU treaty on the streets to fight an unpopular policy – and an unpopular president. His presidency looks more like Napoléon’s court than the model republic all those advocates of this “modern” form of state proclaim. Sarkozy shows how old this republican model really looks like.

Portugal's King in waiting: Dom Duarte Pio

Portugal was the first country in the 20th century to lose her Monarchy, yet the claimant to the Portuguese throne hopes the country will be the first in the 21st century to win back the Monarchy. Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança, is confident of re-gaining the throne that was taken away from the Royal House of Bragança in 1910 because recent opinion polls demonstrated that up to 30 percent of the people would not mind having a King instead of a president. This high approval rate for a Crowned Head of State is not just nostalgia, but is to a large extent Dom Duarte’s good reputation as someone who cares about the country and the environment. Since the 1970s he has advocated organic farming, he is an outspoken critic of the destruction of the landscape in rural areas, where holiday homes replace farm houses. He travels the country and listens to the people, but not as a politician who wants to catch their votes, but as someone who cares. Though the Monarchist People’s Party (Partido Popular Monárquico – PPM) has deputies in the national assembly, the King in waiting keeps his distance even to his most loyal supporters. He knows as King it would be dangerous to be affiliated with a single party. He is above party lines and has supporters in nearly all democratic parties.

On the other hand he formed a non-partisan organisation, the Causa Real, the Royal Cause, which has 10,000 members all over Portugal. Recently the organisation elected a new chairman: Paulo Teixeira Pinto. He had served Portuguese presidents and prime ministers in the last 30 years before quitting politics and becoming secretary general of Portugal’s Central Bank. Then he joined the country’s biggest finance group. After leaving the Millenium Bank he re-organised his personal life and became a solicitor. He seems to be determined to promote the Cause Real to a new level and make it a vehicle for Dom Duarte’s claims to the throne.

Born on 15th May 1945 in Berne/Switzerland, Dom Duarte and his family were banned from entering Portugal until in 1950 the National Assembly repealed the laws of exile. In 1951 Dom Duarte visited Portugal for the first time accompanied by his aunt the Infanta Filippa. In 1952 he moved to Portugal permanently with his parents and his two brothers.

From 1957 to 1959 Dom Duarte was enrolled in the Colégio Nuno Álvares in Santo Tirso in Northern Portugal. In 1960 he entered the Military College in Lisbon. He attended the Instituto Superior de Agronomia (now part of the Technical University of Lisbon) where he received a degree in agricultural sciences. Later he attended the Graduate Institute of Development Studies of the University of Geneva.

From 1968 to 1971 Dom Duarte did military service and worked as a helicopter pilot in the Portuguese Air Force in Angola. In 1972 he participated with a multi-ethnic Angolan group in the organization of an independent list of candidates to the National Assembly. This resulted in his expulsion from Angola by order of the then Portuguese Prime Minister Marcelo Caetano. He assumed the rights and duties as Head of Portugal's Royal Family on the death of his father, Dom Duarte Nuno, on 24th December 1976.

When Dom Duarte married the Portuguese noblewoman Isabel de Herédia on 13th May 1995 the country enjoyed the first royal wedding since the marriage of King Dom Luís in 1862. The ceremony, televised throughout Portugal and other Portuguese speaking countries including Brazil, Angola and Mozambique, was celebrated in the Monastery of Jerónimos in Lisbon and presided over by the Patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal António Ribeiro, and attended by the president of the republic, Mário Soares, the president of the National Assembly, the then prime minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva, who was elected president of Portugal in January 2006.

The birth of Infante Afonso, Prince of Beira, on 25th March 1996 was the first royal birth in Portugal since the birth of Dom Manuel II, Portugal’s last King, in 1889. With two more children born in 1997, Infanta Maria Francisca, and Infante Dinis, Duke of Porto, in 1999 the succession is secure and the Portuguese Royal Family will florish in the 21st century, ready to ascend to the throne.

Official website of the Portuguese Royal Family



Video on the Portuguese Royal Family


The Royal Wedding in 1995 (part 1 of 18 parts!):



King Manuel II (1889-1932)

On Wednesday 6 February 2008, the Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC sent the following message to Her Majesty The Queen on the occasion of the 56th Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne:

"It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the people of Australia, to send to Your Majesty loyal and affectionate greetings on the Anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne”.



On a much more enthusiastic note the Canadian Government asked all Canadians to celebrate the accession of the Queen of Canada to the throne:

Statement by the Hon. Jason Kenney, PC, MP, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) on Accession Day
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwir e - Feb. 5, 2008) -

February 6 marks the anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne as Queen of Canada.

For more than 50 years, Her Majesty has been a constant reminder of our heritage as a constitutional monarchy and of our unique identity-of our origins and of our constant evolution.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last year, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's "lifelong dedication to duty and self-sacrifice have been a source of inspiration and encouragement to the many countries that make up the Commonwealth and to the people of Canada."

I would like to take the opportunity presented by Accession Day to encourage all Canadians to express their pride in our identity as a constitutional monarchy and in the democratic heritage left to us by our forbears.

For more information, please contact
Office of the Honourable Jason Kenney, PC, MP,
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)
Alykhan Velshi, Director of Communications
819-934-1122