1973: Greek Referendum on the Country's Monarchy
Hardly any country has had so many referenda on their form of state than Greece. Some resulted in favouring the Monarchy, some gave the politicians’ republic the preference. On this day 35 years ago, the then ruling military junta ordered the country to accept the colonels' republic. What's hardly a surprise in a dictatorship, they got what they had asked for: A republic.

According to the official results, in the referendum of 29th July 1973 3,870,124 (78.4%) agreed with the military rulers to abolish the Monarchy, 1,064,300 (21.6%) courageously expressed their disapproval with the republic and remained loyal to King Constantine II, who has been living in exile since 1967. Greece had a population of 10 million, the junta registered less than 6 million voters. According to the official figures 4,934,424 took part in the referendum. Considering these figures the achieved majority is put in a different spot light.

King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie on 14th December 1967 on their way into exile after the King's attempted coup to restore democracy in Greece had failed.








The Mutiny of the Velos
1973 was a crucial year in Greek history. In May 1973 a wide-ranging anti-junta movement among the ranks of the mostly Royalist Navy was discovered and suppressed, just before its outbreak. On 25 May 1973, the destroyer Velos, under the command of Nikolaos Pappas, while participating in a NATO exercise and in order to protest against the dictatorship in Greece, anchored at Fiumicino, Italy, refusing to return to Greece. The captain and the officers had learned by radio that royalist naval officers had been arrested and tortured in Greece. Commander Pappas was a member of a group of democratic officers, loyal to their oath to the King and planning to act against the junta. Pappas knew the arrested officers and realised there was no further hope for a coup at that point.
Headline in a German newspaper on 29th May 1973: "Mutiny for the King was a strike against the King."

Nikolaos Pappas and 31 officers and crew disembarked and asked for political asylum, creating a world-wide interest for the situation in Greece. The failed Navy revolt demonstrated that even after six years of junta "normality", the opposition had not died off, and that it existed even amongst large parts of the armed forces, which were the regime's main internal supporter.

The US magazine Time wrote in its edition of 11th June 1973: "In the wake of the coup, there were reports that the regime had rounded up hundreds of civilians and military men who were suspected of being royalist partisans. Last week, Papadopoulos sacked his chief of the navy after sitting down to dinner with him the night before. The air force was also grounded for fear that dissident pilots would fly their planes to Italy, in a show of support for the coup.

"'He [the King] cooperated with all kinds of reactionaries, turned against the armed forces and behaved like a party leader of adventurists, fellow travelers, saboteurs and even murderers.' With those sharp words, Premier George Papadopoulos, in a ten-minute, nationwide broadcast, last week abolished the monarchy and appointed himself head of the new Greek Republic. He accused Constantine of supporting an abortive coup planned by royalist naval officers, which gave Papadopoulos an ideal excuse to extend the junta's heavyhanded rule and depose the King. Under the constitution that Papadopoulos promulgated in 1968, which provides that the King is titular head of state, last week's announcement that Greece had become a republic was patently illegal. But it did not come as much of a surprise. Originally, the colonels had used the throne as a way of giving their rule some illusion of legitimacy. King Constantine's refusal to return to Greece from exile in Rome until democracy was restored had long since made a mockery of that claim."
In June 1973 King Constantine declared in a press conference, that he would not accept Papadopoulos' act and would fight instead for the restoration of democracy in his home country.

A Decreed republic
The Navy’s royalist sympathies gave Georgios Papadopoulos the pretext he was looking for to assume total power in Greece. The Daily Telegraph wrote (1st June 1973): “Last week's abortive mutiny has apparently convinced Mr. Papadopoulos that the time was ripe to put paid to future plots in which the King is used as a rallying cry.”

On 1st June, Papadopoulos issued a decree declaring Greece a presidential republic, with himself as president. The act was widley criticised as illegal. To give his new putsch the air of legality, Papadopoulos ordered a referendum to be held on 29 July 1973. The defunct political parties and their leaders urged for a "No" as a sign of opposition to the regime, but the vote was tightly controlled by the junta, and the results were predictably favourable to the regime. (See results above).

Once again Time magazine: "Last month [it was actually April 1973], exiled former Premier Constantine Caramanlis, 66, issued a bitter broadside from Paris against the regime, calling for its resignation and the return of the King to oversee the restoration of democracy. … Many Greeks have mixed feelings about King Constantine, but the monarchy has traditionally been viewed as a symbolic support of democracy."

The referendum did not quieten the opposition, among which the royalists formed a large part: “The press [in Greece] has published anti-regime appeals, but has not been allowed to do so when these have come from influential sources. … The same applies to the appeals of the deposed King Constantine and retired military officers. One retired officer was recently jailed for sending a letter to a provincial paper in which he suggested that the monarchy should be restored.” (Weekly "To the Point", 8th September 1973).

Papadopoulos couldn’t enjoy his presidency for very a long time. In November 1973, the Athens Polytechnic uprising broke out. The student uprising is generally believed to have been spontaneous, started with purely student demands at first, and not orchestrated by any political groups in Greece. On 24th November 1973 he was toppled by Brigadier General Dimitrios Ioannides and arrested. Lieutnant General Phaedon Gizikis was declared president.

The Legacy of the 1973 Referendum
Observers from the very diversified Greek political spectrum may argue on many issues, but they agree on one point: The results of the 29th July 1973 referendum “were achieved by fraud and intimidation”(Panayotis Kanellopoulos, last royal Prime Minister in 1967), however, the legacy of dictator Georgios Papadopulos’ is still effecting Greek politics.

King Constantine II ascended to the Greek throne after the death of his father, King Pavlos I, on 6th March 1964.

"A king is a king unless he says he is no longer a king. Titles don't disappear but power and privelege can be taken away from them. Found in Wikipedia, posted by Charles, 4 October 2006

Leve België!

Vive la Belgique!

His Majesty, King Albert II, King of the Belgians, addressed the Nation
This Monday, Kingdom of Belgium is celebrating its national day. On 21st July 1831 King Leopold I, the first King of the Belgians, was sworn in after the country had gained its independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830.

With the unity of the Kingdom in danger, the traditional speech to the nation, which the King delivers on the eve of the national day, was eagerly awaited. It is available in Flemish and in French, however, I reproduce only the French version.

The audio recording of the speech can be listened to here.

This is what the King had to say:

Le discours da Sa Majesté le Roi

Dimanche 20 juillet 2008, 20:58

« Mesdames et Messieurs,

Il y a maintenant près de quinze ans que le Roi Baudouin nous a quittés, mais il reste très présent dans la mémoire de nos concitoyens.

Notre pays traverse, vous le savez bien, de sérieuses difficultés politiques, mais j’aimerais rappeler que les difficultés et les crises sont aussi des occasions de rebondir et de se ressaisir. La division dans les esprits n’est pas une fatalité. C’est l’union et la tolérance dans le respect de l’identité de chaque entité fédérée qui représentent la seule voie possible dans notre société démocratique. Nous devons inventer de nouvelles formes de vivre ensemble dans notre pays.

Néanmoins, je ne voudrais pas m’étendre davantage sur nos difficultés institutionnelles présentes, mais évoquer certains thèmes qui tenaient tellement à cœur au Roi Baudouin, et voir avec vous comment ils ont évolué ces 15 dernières années, et ce qu’il faut encore réaliser.

Mon frère était profondément attaché aux valeurs de base de notre société, en particulier à la justice, la solidarité avec les plus faibles, et le respect de chaque personne.

Il était notamment préoccupé par la pauvreté. Celle-ci a pris de nouvelles formes et touche davantage de jeunes et de familles monoparentales. Elle reste aussi répandue parmi les personnes âgées. Une étude du Service Fédéral économie montre qu’en Belgique une personne sur 7, soit 14, 7 % de la population, peut être considérée comme pauvre.

Concrètement cela signifie qu’environ un million cinq cent mille personnes vivent chez nous dans la pauvreté. Cela concerne des personnes seules avec un revenu de moins de 860 euros par mois, et des familles de 2 adultes et 2 enfants avec un revenu mensuel de moins de 1.805 euros. Ce pourcentage est plus élevé que dans nos pays voisins, et nos efforts pour le réduire significativement doivent se poursuivre avec ténacité. En effet, ne faisons-nous pas partie des pays les plus prospères de la planète ? Les causes de pauvreté sont multiples, mais l’enseignement, la formation professionnelle, l’emploi et le logement social sont des instruments privilégiés pour la combattre.

Par ailleurs, certains délits graves restent hélas d’actualité. Ainsi, la traite des êtres humains qui frappe durement les personnes les plus fragiles ne régresse pas, malgré nos dispositions légales.

Comme le montre une récente étude du Centre pour l’égalité des chances, les formes que prend cette traite changent, se diversifient, et les victimes sont, pour une part, originaires de pays différents. Si le phénomène est peut-être moins visible, le combattre devrait à nouveau devenir une priorité.

D’autres grandes souffrances, dont on parle trop peu, touchent des jeunes vulnérables. Il y a d’abord la violence contre eux-mêmes. Dans notre pays le nombre de suicides chez les jeunes demeure élevé. Une politique de prévention et d’écoute de jeunes en difficulté devrait être stimulée.

De récentes données de centres de prévention dans notre pays montrent qu’un « teenager » sur 10 s’est déjà mutilé ou a essayé de se suicider. En outre, la violence de jeunes à l’endroit d’autres personnes s’est également accrue et traduit un mal vivre dans une partie de notre société. Là aussi une politique de prévention, centrée sur le respect de l’autre, doit être renforcée. Mais il va de soi que les Autorités feront leur travail lorsque, malgré tout, la violence se manifeste effectivement, et un accompagnement adéquat de ces jeunes sera assuré.

Par ailleurs, le Roi Baudouin était un avocat vigoureux de l’unité et de la cohésion du pays, dans le respect de sa diversité. Il était convaincu que le caractère multiculturel de notre pays est une richesse et un atout.

Dans son dernier discours de juillet 1993, il préconisait, et je cite : « un esprit de conciliation, de bonne volonté, de tolérance et de civisme fédéral. » Il poursuivait en demandant, et je cite encore : « que nous puissions unir nos efforts pour faire face ensemble à d’autres défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés. Parmi eux, je pense surtout à l’emploi, à la sécurité, à l’enseignement et à la construction européenne. » Fin de citation.

Ces propos restent évidemment d’une grande actualité, et j’invite chacun à les méditer en cette année européenne du dialogue interculturel.

Enfin, mon frère était aussi très préoccupé de voir le fossé entre les pays riches et les pays pauvres s’accroître. Est-il besoin de rappeler qu’à ce jour encore, moins de 20 % de la population de notre terre bénéficie de plus de 80 % du revenu mondial. Le partage équitable est un devoir de solidarité que nous devons poursuivre et renforcer.

L’évolution climatique, dont l’hémisphère nord est en grande partie responsable, renforce encore ces inégalités, et la crise alimentaire mondiale accentue les difficultés de nombreux pays.


La situation en Afrique, et en particulier en Afrique centrale, doit continuer à nous mobiliser. Nous ne pouvons être indifférents aux drames humains qui s’y propagent, et spécialement aux tragédies innombrables dont les femmes et les jeunes filles sont les victimes.

Pour terminer, j’aimerais rendre hommage à la Reine Fabiola qui vient de fêter son quatre-vingtième anniversaire. Au nom de tous je la remercie pour ce qu’elle a été aux côtés du Roi Baudouin pendant plus de 30 ans, et pour tout ce qu’elle continue à faire.

En rappelant ces quelques sujets auxquels le Roi Baudouin était particulièrement sensible, il faut bien constater que les situations auxquelles il consacrait tant d’énergie se sont en partie modifiées, mais que les défis de base demeurent. Si je le souligne, c’est que chacun de nous peut contribuer à rendre notre société plus solidaire et plus juste.


C’est le souhait que la Reine et moi et toute notre famille formons à l’occasion de notre Fête Nationale. »

50 Years ago: A Massacre in Bagdad's Royal Palace puts an End to the Hashemite Monarchy and starts 50 Years of Bloodshed and Oppression
 
The world was shocked and horrified, with the news of the coup d’état against King Faisal II of Iraq. The 23 year old King was brutally murdered in a military putsch on 14th July 1958. The officers behind this bloody seizure of power called themselves "Free Officers" and were inspired by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and his nationalistic rhetoric, but they were also encouraged by the Americans who disliked the British influence in the Middle East. Then as now oil was the driving factor behind the overthrow of the government of Iraq.

King Faisal II and Crown Prince Abdullah were executed in the gardens of the Royal Palace. Their bodies (and those of many others in the royal family) were displayed in public. Among the dead were: Princess Hiyam, Abdullah's wife; Princess Nafeesa, Abdullah’s mother, Princess Abadiya, the king’s aunt. However, some sources on the internet claim, that Princess Hiyam survived her injuries, caused during the massacre, and was able to escape the country.


The young King had been engaged to be married to H.H. Princess Sabiha Fazila Khanum Sultana, only daughter of Prince Damad Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim Bey Effendi of Egypt, by his wife, H.I.H. Princess Zahra Khanzadi Sultana, second daughter of Captain H.I.H. Prince Omar Faruk Effendi of Turkey. She was not in Bagdad, when the massacre took place and later married Dr Hayri Ürgüplü, eldest son of H.E. 'Ali Suat Hayri Ürgüplü, GCVO, sometime Senator and Prime Minister of Turkey, by his wife, Nigar. Princess Sabiha Fazila has two sons.

Between 1921 and 1958, Iraq had three kings descended from Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who initiated the Arab revolt against the region’s Ottoman rulers: Faisal I (1921-1933), Ghazi I (1933-1939) and Faisal II (1939-1958). King Faisal- born 2nd May 1935 - was not even four years old, when his father died in a car accident on 4th April 1939 and he succeeded him as King. Until he was 18 years old and officially crowned King of Iraq the following regents ruled as in his name:
· Crown Prince Abdul Ilahi bin Ali (1939-1941)
· Prime Minister Rashid Ali al-Kaylani (1941)
· Crown Prince Abdul Ilahi bin Ali (1941-1953)

Following King Faisal II’s assassination by blood thirsty officers in 1958, there were no elections for 27 years. Votes organised by Saddam Hussein were hardly democratic. And as Bernard Lewis wrote “Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution--it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed.”

“The 1925 Iraqi constitution - which establishes that the nation's sovereignty 'resides in the people' — provides for an elected lower house of parliament, which has a major role in approving constitutional amendments. It also contains a section on 'The Rights of the People' that declares Islam as the official religion, but also provides for freedom of worship for all Islamic sects and indeed for all religions and for 'complete freedom of conscience'. It further guarantees 'freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations'. In different words, the essence of much of our own Bill of Rights is reflected therein.”

In his article Lewis goes even further by suggesting that Iraq should get back its Monarchy: “It is worth noting that monarchy and democracy coexist happily in a number of countries. Indeed, of the nations that have been democracies for a very long time and show every sign that they will remain so, a substantial majority are constitutional monarchies (the U.S. and Switzerland being the principal exceptions).”

Lewis went even further in recommending: “The king should be a Hashemite prince with political experience and no political obligations or commitments. In view of the nation's Shiite majority, the prime minister should be a modern Shiite with a record of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Such leaders would be well-suited to begin the process that would in time lead to genuinely free and fair elections, sound amendments to the 1925 Iraqi Constitution, and the election of a truly representative governing body. We would also strongly suggest that the choices of king and prime minister be made on the basis of character, ability and political experience - not on the basis of bias, self-interest, grudges or rivalries held or felt by some in the region and indeed by some in the U.S. government.

“The respect enjoyed by the Hashemites has been earned. They have had a generally deserved reputation for tolerance and coexistence with other faiths and other branches of Islam. Many Iraqis look back on the era of Hashemite rule from the 1920s to the 1950s as a golden age. And during the period of over 1,000 years when the Hashemites ruled the Hejaz, wherein the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, they dealt tolerantly with all Muslims during the Haj, or annual pilgrimage. Disagreements and tension under Hashemite rule have never come close either to the bloody conflicts of many centuries' duration in Europe between Catholics and Protestants or to the massacres and hatred perpetrated by the Wahhabis and their allies in the House of Saud."
George Bush and his fellow warriors didn’t follow Bernard Lewis’ advice, although even some Republicans in Congress supported the idea of an Iraqi Monarchy. For example U.S. Rep. John Shimkus said in July 2007 that while he is “a democracy guy,” he’s not sure Iraq is ready for American-style government. Shimkus, R-Collinsville: “In some of these countries where they are having some Islamic presence, is it better to have a constitutional monarchy, with a very strong, powerful king”, Shimkus said during a discussion with the editorial board of The State Journal-Register. “When I taught government and history,” Shimkus added, “by definition, what is the best form of government, the most simple, is a compassionate monarchy - a monarchy that loves and respects its citizens and … is able to make easy decisions without the weight of a bureaucracy we’d have to fund.”

David Pryce-Jones a National Review senior editor wrote: "Restoration of a Hashemite to the throne of Iraq has its logic at a time when rulers and boundaries are in question."


Who should be Iraq's King?
The question, who should be Iraq’s King is not so easily decided as the fact that Iraq needs a King. There are at least two serious claimants:
Sharif Ali bin Hussein, whose mother was Faisal II's aunt. Just two years old at the time of the 1958 massacre of the Iraqi Royal Family, he has been a banker in London, and has the Constitutional Monarchy Movement backing him.
Prince Ali remained an opponent of the rule of Saddam Hussein. In 1991, he quit his job managing investment funds and became a member of the Iraqi National Congress which had the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He has succeeded in establishing himself as claimant in the international press, however his party did not obtained a substantial percentage of the popular vote in the 2005 election.

Some critics assert that Sharif Ali is not even in line to the throne according to the constitution of the old Iraqi monarchy. According to this constitution, the heir to the monarchy would be Prince Ra'ad (born 1936), who lives in Jordan.

Prince Ra'ad is the only son of Prince Zeid Ben Al Hussein (the fourth son of Sherif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca) and Princess Fakhrelnissa Zeid, a renowned artist.

The Prince, who spent most of his early childhood in Baghdad growing up alongside King Faisal II of Iraq, was invited by his cousin the late King Hussein to make Jordan his home after the 1958 Iraqi revolution.

He obtained his bachelor's degree from Victoria College, Alexandria, in 1960, and his master's from Cambridge University in 1963. A staunch advocate of the disabled, the Prince heads the Jordan Sports Federation for the Disabled, the Jordanian Special Olympics Organisation and the Friendship Society for the Blind. He pushed for the 1993 Law for the Welfare of Disabled Persons which delineates clear obligations by the public and private sectors towards the disabled.

Prince Ra'ad is also president of the Petra National Trust (PNT), a non-governmental, non-profit organisation with a mandate to preserve the antiquities, environment and cultural heritage of Petra.

What do Iraqis think about the Hashemite Monarchy that was toppled in 1958?
Aida Kouyoumjian, now a retired educator, lives in Seattle, Washington State:Iraq may need what it once had -- a constitutional monarchy
Once upon a not-too-distant past, civility prevailed in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers where I grew up. We had a King whose throne necessitated civil behavior among the tribal blood feuds, the religious diversities and the ethnic mores. The aura of a monarchy bestowed the privilege to control behavior and bring dignity to the self.

Iraq was a Kingdom before Saddam Hussein's precursor regime that, playing with Moscow in the 1950s, executed regicide, much like the Bolsheviks did to the Tsar's family in Russia in 1917. The coup d'etat, led by an Iraqi general (Brig. Gen. Abdel Kerim Qassim), on July 14, 1958, raided the Qasr al-Zuhur (Palace of Roses). On the pretext that a helicopter would pick up the Royal Family to safety, they were directed to the courtyard. Instead, the King, the Regent, the Princess, the grandmother and other members of the Royalty were made to face the palace walls and machine-gunned.

The brutality was furthered in the display of the dead bodies of the 23-year-old King Faisal II and the 45-year-old regent, Abdel Ilah. They were dragged down Rashid Street in Baghdad, with "feet up and naked, except for white briefs," as described by my father who witnessed the demonstration on his way to work that day. Obviously, he did not go to his office, for fear of his life.

There is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about a limited monarchy serving as a transition. Royalty provides the framework for law and order and national unity. It preserves the symbolic past and can be in itself an important representative without threatening democracy. Kings and Queens in England, Denmark, Spain and Jordan have espoused an evolving constitution while the governing body revolves around the monarch -- a figurehead responsive to its citizenry.

Iraq would benefit from a constitutional monarchy, without having to re-invent the wheel. Since its inception in 1921, Iraq has had three kings, descendants of the Hashemite clan, a direct line from the Prophet Muhammad. Each king ruled effectively under a constitution ratified by the Iraqi parliament in 1925, much of its essence reflecting the U.S. Bill of Rights. All Iraqis were equal before the law and in their enjoyment of civil and political rights, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.

The fact that I am in [the USA] is a good example: ethnically, I am Armenian, not an Arab; by faith, I am a Christian, not a Muslim; and I am female, not male. Despite all those odds and a Fulbright scholarship in my hand, the Iraqi government, in 1952, under the rule of monarchy, supported my ambition for higher education in America.
The Hashemite Royalty has earned a reputation for tolerance and coexistence with other faiths and other branches of Islam throughout the Middle East. Certainly, the Kings of Jordan fit this description, as did the kings of Iraq. I've experienced that in the first two decades of my life in Baghdad:

1. I can show you school pictures with friends who are Jewish, Muslim (both Shia and Sunni), Ba'hai, Assyrian and Armenian. I went to church on Sundays, my Jewish friends attended temple on Saturdays and schools were closed on Fridays, in deference to the Muslim state of Iraq.

2. My father, a Christian Armenian, worked for the government as one of the lead engineers in the irrigation department.

3. My mother volunteered at the Red Crescent Organization (the local Red Cross) with Christian teachers, Armenian doctors and with the King's fiancé and her mother, both Sunni Turks.

4. We shopped anywhere, swam in the Tigris or Euphrates anytime, and danced with whomever we pleased -- Americans, Arabs or Swedes.

In other words, we controlled our own destiny. What we couldn't control was the awful dust.

The principle of hereditary monarchy does not attract many defenders in a world of equal opportunity and anti-elitism. But there is a lot to say about grooming the next in line for high office that promises a stable future. What Iraq needs immediately is stability.

Restoring the monarchy, ruling with a non-flailing whip, may be a political necessity to control the hostilities that have festered in the psyche of the Shi'ia and Sunni for 1,200 years.

There are several descendants of the Hashemite heritage in the diaspora. Would they consent to ascend the throne? Perhaps temporarily. With guidance from the members of Iraq Royalist Party, who were duly elected into the current government, there would be a semblance to civil behavior among the feuding factions in the country.

Evict the Queen from Buck House: Make space for Rupert!

You would not have guessed it: Barry Everingham is a Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty. Melbourne’s tabloid newspaper HeraldSun is one of his favourite media to publish his articles and the HeraldSun gave the author that discription.

Considering the number of articles he writes on the Monarchy in Australia as well as the British Monarchy and the republican tendencies in both countries, he must earn a substantial amount of money. Let’s hope he gets enough to live royally. The commentator's latest presumably well paid attack on Royalty was published on 8th July in the HeraldSun

Barry Everingham is disgusted that “our own head of state has complained she hasn't enough money for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace. The Queen wants the Government to allocate a huge sum to keep the crumbling building shipshape”.

Dear me, what has she asked for? A 70 percent payrise like French president Nicolas Sarkozy? He got immediately what he wanted from a rubber stamp Assemblée Nationale, but Barry Everingham was not referring to the civil list the British Parliament draws up every year to pay for the cost for the Monarchy. Actually, you will not find the annual budget for the Monarchy in Barry Everingham’s article. You have to look into more serious media to find this: “The monarchy now costs £40 million to maintain, up £2 million in the last year, according to an annual report from Buckingham Palace. The Queen spent £1.2 million on catering and hospitality and £600,000 on housekeeping and furnishings.” Or you can go the British Monarchy website and download the annual financial report.

You will then discover facts Barry Everingham avoids to mention: “The Royal Public Finances annual report, which includes details of public expenditure on property and travel, states that Head of State expenditure for 2007-08 at £40.0 million (including VAT of £2.6 million) has increased by 2.0% in real terms. Over the past seven years it has decreased in real terms by 3.1%.”

Unlike French president Sarkozy or US-president George Bush the Queen does not get a salary. The Royal Budget is mainly spent on people who work for the Monarchy. As long as a country has a head of state, costs arise to keep the machinery going – in a Monarchy as well as in a republic. Claims, a republic would be cheaper, have very often proven wrong, like here.

However, Barry Everingham goes even further in proclaiming: “The Queen wants the Government to allocate a huge sum to keep the crumbling building shipshape.” Again, he follows the motto: Don’t let facts disturb your prejudice. The fact is that Buckingham Palace and other residences are in urgent need of repairs. Already in June last year The Daily Mail warned:

“At Frogmore, which is in the grounds of Home Park at Windsor, parts of the Victoria and Albert Mausoleum's ceiling have fallen in and the situation is so serious that English Heritage has warned it may need to be closed completely.

"The problems are most acute, however, at Buckingham Palace. The elegant quadrangle is described as a 'potential risk to health and safety'. Built in 1847 out of Caen stone, it has been badly affected by the elements.

"Although aides insist the area is not dangerous for members of the public, they admit the incident involving Princess Anne's car in February was a close call. 'It was fairly dramatic. To have the nation's palaces crumbling in front of our eyes simply isn't acceptable,' one senior aide said.

"The maintenance of official royal residences is funded by a grant from the Department for Culture Media and Sport. If the Queen is refused the extra money, aides say they will have to divert it from other essential projects rather than play roulette with public safety.

"Sir Alan added:'There is a critical backlog in maintenance projects already, however, and if our historic buildings are to remain safe it is essential that the grant is increased by £1million per year.'"

You may well ask: Why does the Queen not receive the necessary funds? The answer is simple: Because of the bloody Olympics: Queen refused government grant because of 2012 Olympic Games

Cheap republican Britain?
Returning to Barry Everingham's article we have to ascertain that he does not give any figures, he just talks about “a huge sum”. Would this sum be smaller in a republican Britain? Certainly, victorious republicans would not let the Royal Family stay in Buckingham Palace, but would nationalize this building and many more Royal Residences. Who would then pay for the repair work? The incoming president himself? Does George Bush pay for any damage his presidency causes - locally or worldwide? Still the people, I guess, like in any other republic. Barry Everingham’s envy game is as lucid as his sources are doubtful.

With a little help from his Marxist friend
In his HeraldSun article Barry Everingham relies heavily on an article published in the London newspaper The Times: “One newspaper headline rather rudely, yet hilariously, reported 'One is on one's uppers', and the venerable The Times went so far as to suggest that perhaps it's time Parliament voted to abolish the monarchy, using the recent events in Nepal as a blueprint.”

We can provide you with the name of the author Barry Everingham dares to mention: Mick Hume, former editor of Living Marxism, wrote the attack on the Queen "Can't pay for your palace? Then get out" on 1st July, 2008, which inspired Barry Everingham to his flaming crusade against "the greedy royals" six days later.

I don't know if Mick Hume is a staff writer of The Times or just a freelancer like Barry Everingham. It is significant, that both newspapers, The Times and the HeraldSun belong to Rupert Murdoch’s world wide media empire. They all follow the same pattern: Discredit the Monarchy, but make money for Rupert. That’s obviously as fine for good old marxists in Britain as for their fellow republican imitators in Australia. Or should I have missed an attack by Barry Everingham on the Murdoch dynasty?

A Royal Auction of William Tallon’s collection
William Tallon’s collection, a legacy of more than fifty years service, was auctioned Saturday, 5th July 2008. The servant who had joined the royal household in 1951 was devoted to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. He had collected bits and pieces, souvenirs of a lifelong service for all members of the Royal Family. And they thanked him in different ways. He collected memorabilia: Photos, invitation cards, notes, gifts and trinkets. Everything went under the hammer. About 400 buyers and spectators crowded into the Reeman Dansie auction room in Colchester, Essex, with others bidding from around the world by telephone and internet. The auction lasted more than ten hours and took nearly double the pre-sale estimates.

Among the treasure trove of 700 items was a note from the Queen Mother, known for enjoying a tipple, instructing Mr Tallon to pack "two small bottles of Dubonnet and gin ... in case it is needed".

Expected to fetch up to $617, it eventually went to a phone bidder for $33,000.
Top-priced item was a portrait of the Queen Mother by Sir James Gunn, dated November 1945, which went for $61,700 - five times its top pre-sale estimate.

The frenzied auction attracted even the attention of the ABC, which is surprising considering that when the Queen Mother died, the ABC did not have time to show much of the state ceremony surrounding the funeral of the former Australian sovereign, because the time was needed to broadcast an old Cary Grant film, this despite a large number of complaints. The ABC as usual failed to see that it has a duty to cover State events involving the Australian Royal Family.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother celebrated Her 100th birthday on 4 August 2000. Born the Honourable Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother was one of the most popular and admired members of the British royal family. She was the widow of King George VI and mother of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret.

To mark her 100th birthday Australia Post issued a special souvenir cover shown above. The cover featured Australia Post’s 1999 Queen’s Birthday stamp which also celebrated the life of the Queen Mother. The stamp features images of both the Queen and the Queen Mother and was the first time mother and daughter had appeared together on an Australian stamp.

After the Queen Mother's death in 2002 The Age reported then Prime Minister John Howard cited her visits to Australia in 1927, 1949, 1958 and 1966. "The Queen Mother's connection with Australia was very regular," he said. "She was a well-loved member of the royal family, a deeply revered lady around the world and a gracious and impressive person." Then Opposition leader Simon Crean said the Queen Mother had earned the public's respect. He said her reign and Australia's federation had seen profound changes in the monarchy.

"The Australian public don't really want a republic.”

Amazing things happen: The Sunday Age published an article that gives the Australian Monarchists a lead over the republicans: Says social researcher David Chalke, referring to data he's accumulated since the turn of the century that shows a steady decline in enthusiasm for constitutional change: "The majority of the Australian public don't really want a republic.”

Chalke's assessment turns the republic into a non-issue. "With only 35% of all adult Australians believing that it is important that Australia becomes a republic — and only 34% of Victorians — Rudd's antennae, or more likely his market research, will be telling him to leave the republic alone for now."

Chalke says the biggest problem for the republicans will remain the republicans themselves. "The Australian public mainly rejected the last referendum because they disliked and distrusted the most vocal republicans. They envisaged a president coming from that cast of Anglophobe elites and were not going to have a bar of it. For the republic to come about it must be a soft sell, a gradual evolution; not a 'crash or crash through' assault. The latter will only end up in republican tears before bedtime, again."

The results of the opinion polls show that there isn’t even a majority for a republic among Labor supporters.

Tackle climate change! - Use royal assistance!

When it comes to fighting climate change there’s a lot of hot air in Australia. Prime Minister Rudd wants to cut Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by 60% - but only by 2050. That’s a long time and in 42 years none of the politicians who are in power today, will be accountable should this ambitious aim fail. However, it is very convenient to have a target set so far into the future. If nothing will have been achieved by 2018 or 2029, there will still be soft spoken politicians to tell the then audience that there's still a lot of time.

Politicians from both sides pretend, measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions should not effect “working families”. But it is inevitable, that it will change their lives - and quite rightly it should change all our lives -, however the longer they wait to take action, the more harmful and vastly more expensive these necessary changes will be.

Neither Labor nor the Coalition want to become “unpopular” for introducing an trading programme for carbon dioxide emissions that has a cost impact on the mythical "working family". Why don’t they seek for help? The heir to the throne, Prince Charles, could show them – and the Australian public - a way to fight C02 emissions. The Prince of Wales’ Rainforests Project encourages everyone to take part in the fight.

The Prince’s Rainforests Project was set up in October 2007 by The Prince of Wales to find practical methods to slow or even reverse, tropical deforestation and combat climate change.

It is estimated that as much as 12 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions result from deforestation, and both the Stern review and the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report believe tackling deforestation may be one of the quickest and most cost effective means of reducing emissions in the short term.

The Prince of Wales has long been concerned that the world will continue to live off capital rather than income, and what we enjoy today will be at the expense of our children and grandchildren, unless practical and robust systems are developed to enable broader and longer-term factors to be taken into account more effectively in accounting and decision-making.

Commissions and committees have been established, and policies and strategies developed and put into practice by the Government and companies; however, the translation of this aspiration into effective action is often inhibited by the lack of new “sustainability systems and processes”.

The Prince of Wales established his Accounting for Sustainability Project to address this issue: to provide practical guidance and tools to help ensure that sustainability is not just talked about but becomes an integral part of organisations’ day-to-day operations. The Project focused on developing systems to help organisations take into account, and report, the wider social and environmental costs of their actions.

With contributions from over 150 public and private sector organisations, the Accounting for Sustainability Project came forward with two practical and innovative tools to help organisations meet the challenge of the sustainable revolution.

It is good to see that the future King of Australia produces more than hot air and gives advice to everyone who wants to join his fight against climate change. A pity Australian politicians don’t want to see the future sovereign in Australia to help them and engage the Australian public in making climate change a matter for everyone. How can they claim climate change should be everybody's concern when they are unwilling to use the assistance that is so close at hand?

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?