V. P. Singh passes away
Vishwanath Pratap Singh (Hindi: विश्वनाथ प्रताप सिंह), India’s tenth prime minister, had been fighting against leukemia since 1991. On 27th November 2008 he lost the fight and passed away at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in Delhi, India. His close associate Wasim Ahmad said: "The end came at 2.45 PM.” Singh leaves behind his wife Sita Kumari and two sons Ajeya Singh and Abhay Singh. Though his term in office was short (5th Dec. 1989 to 10th Nov. 1990) he was regarded as one of the most honest and socially oriented politicians the Indian union ever has had as leader.

You may ask, why does this blog, which is dedicated to Monarchy and royal families, commemorate an Indian politician? Answer: Because he was an Indian Royal!


Born on June 25th, 1931 at Allahabad, Shri V. P. Singh was the son of Raja Bahadur Ram Gopal Singh. In 1936 he was adopted by the then Raja of Manda, Bhagwati Prasad Singh of Daiya, a Gaharwar Rajput and head of a princely estate near Allahabad.
He ascended to the throne as 40th Raja of Manda in 1941 on the death of his adoptive father and according to Indian Royalists, he remained Raja of Manda until his death in November (see scan):


He was educated at Allahabad and Poona Universities. He was married to Smt. Sita Kumari on June 25, 1955 and they had two sons. A scholarly man, he was the proud founder of Gopal Vidyalaya, Intermediate College, Koraon, Allahabad. He was the President of the Students Union at Udai Pratap College, Varanasi in 1947-48 and was the Vice-President, Allahabad University Students Union. He actively participated in Bhoodan movement in 1957 and donated a well-established farm in village Pasna, District Allahabad.

A politician with a mission to help the Indian poor
In an obituary published in The Age on 29th November 2008, there was no mention of his royal descend, that would not have fitted into the republican policy of The Age. What value does an obituary have that suppresses important parts of the deceased's life? However Melbourne’s daily newspaper gave praise to the former Indian prime minister's policy: “… He won kudos for championing the rights of the caste-conscious country’s poor, as well as the minority Muslim population.” Popularly known as the 'Mandal messiah', he pulled out the long forgotton B.P. Mandal Commission's report from a dusty government almirah and went on to implement its recommendations, giving 27 percent job reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The middle class, whose support first catapulted V. P. Singh to power as he campaigned against corruption in the Bofors gun deal, loved to hate him, and did not forgive him till the end. The Raja of Manda’s coalition government came to an end, when the support of the BJP-Hindu nationalists was withdrawn in 1990 and he no longer had a majority in the Lok Sabha (Indian House of Commons).

After his downfall he turned towards painting and writing poetry. On his own website he explained his turn towards the arts:

“The visual always fascinated me. As I grew up, I slowly realized that we not only see through our eyes, but also from the heart. Feeling is living. Beauty is Understanding. I was overwhelmed by the harmony of creation. My youth was one rapturous communion with nature. The ecstasy is gone but fragments of its memory, still, at times, shimmer, to give a sudden insight. My paintings are such fragments. Yes, they are fragments because my life is so.”

Indian Royalty play an important part in the country's politics
V. P. Singh was only one of many members of Indian Royal Families who entered politics. In 2004, my favourite Indian newspaper, The Hindu, published an article by Vinay Kumar on this phenomenon.

"More than three decades after [Indian Royalty] were stripped of their royal privileges by Indira Gandhi, they still continue to dominate public life, in some way or the other.

"With elections round the corner, former Rajas, Mahants and Nawabs are all set to enliven the poll arena in the Hindi heartland of Uttar Pradesh. They are jumping into the electoral fray for various reasons: some of them see this as a way of protecting whatever remains of their royal legacies; others see it as a way to further their political careers. But the fact is that they are here to stay.

"It was from this belt that V.P. Singh, the Raja of Manda, emerged to occupy the office of the Prime Minister. He is not the only one to have made it big in politics — there have been others such as the former Raja of Kalakanker, the late Dinesh Singh, elected from the adjoining Pratapgarh parliamentary constituency, who served as a Union Minister during the Congress regime. His daughter, Rajkumari Ratna Singh, represented the same constituency in the Lok Sabha in 1996 and in 1999. In 1991, Abhai Pratap Singh, better known as Bade Raja of Pratapgarh, won the seat on a Janata Dal ticket. His father, Ajit Pratap Singh, won from here in 1962 and 1980. Truth to tell, royals have always dominated the electoral scene in Pratapgarh. Yet another scion of Pratapgarh's ruling family, Vijay Bhushan Singh alias Babbu Raja, has also unsuccessfully contested the Assembly polls.

"'There was a time when royals built schools and shelters for the people and opened their granaries to them in times of crisis. In due course, several of them entered politics and won elections purely because they were so respected. But that is no longer the case; politics is no longer a noble profession. It is only a means to advance one's own interests,' says Raja Bhaiyya, who hails from the royal family of Bhadri and became an MLA from Kunda in 1993."

The Prince and his critic - who is the real kink?
Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian rides in with a new attack on Prince Charles. This time it is Frank Devine who decrees Kinky King Charlie to get our republic across the line. “When Prince Charles turned 60 on November 14 he expressed a wish to speak out on public issues when he becomes king. Since Charles has a lot of kinky green convictions and almost Keatingesque views on architecture and urban planning, this gives one pause. … Whose public issues does he plan to speak out on? I suppose English issues will be OK within reason, and maybe Welsh ones, since he has put in a long stint as prince of this fading rugby power. But no English king in his right mind would speak out on Scottish issues, such as devolution or Sean Connery …”

What did The Prince of Wales actually say? Devine leaves us in the dark and doesn’t go into details. In a BBC documentary broadcast on the occasion of his 60th birthday the following sentences, which could have led Frank Devine to his conclusions, were said according to British media: “He conceded that many people thought that he 'meddled' in issues but he preferred to call it "convening power" by bringing together people who could change things.

Asked whether he would continue to be outspoken on big issues such as the environment when he succeeded to the throne, he said: "I don't know, I don't know - probably not the same way. But I like to think perhaps that after all this, eventually people might realise that some of the things I've been trying to do aren't all that mad and that I might still have some 'convening power' that could be put to use."

How could Frank Devine interpret these statements as a will for political interferece he seems to fear so much?

Or was it Mr. Busybody aka Jonathan Dimbleby who claimed in The Daily Telegraph: “The Prince will break with the tradition which has seen monarchs, including the Queen, remain publicly silent on matters of national and international importance.” There is nothing that would justify Frank Devine’s assumption, that as King of Australia Prince Charles would be a partisan Monarch. Jonathan Dimbleby is a book author who uses every microphone, every TV camera to put himself in the limelight. Since when is he a senior political analyst or advisor to The Prince of Wales? For Frank Devine he must be his master’s voice.

However, the first lines of Devine’s opinion piece show the direction of his attack and give us a clue to what the real worry of Frank Devine and his media moghul were. Devine accuses Prince Charles of “kinky green convictions and almost Keatingesque views on architecture and urban planning”

Prince Charles is passionate about fighting climate change. To describe his worries as kinky can only come from someone who believes, Kevin Rudd could be successful in reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions. Prince Charles is strongly against genetically manipulated (GM) crops – as far as I can see, this subject is heavily discussed in Australia as well. The Murdoch paper’s are not in the forefront to stop GM crops. Why not listen to what the Prince has to say, before you ridicule him as kinky? This goes hand in hand with Prince Charles’ organic farming and his new agricultural methods, which could only help Australian farmers to tackle climate change and preserve export markets. True, Prince Charles has not love lost for modern architecture, but who really has besides the professionals?

Devine therefore hopes: “So tenuous is monarchism's grip on Australians that the personal popularity of the throne's incumbent will probably have a major influence on our deciding whether we want any more of the kings and queens stuff.” Fortunately it will not be the editorialists of this country who decide about the Monarchy and King Charles, but the Australian people. However, the millionaires are eager to put one of their mates on a presidential chair.

After all, who is Frank Devine?
According to his own website he has been employed by a variety of Murdoch media for a long time. Green Left is not very happy about their republican, heavily pro-nuclear power comrade in arms: “Frank Devine, the right-wing journalist from the Australian newspaper, gave a rant about press reporting of nuclear issues and the Luddite zombies, frauds and zealots in the anti-nuclear movement. Undoubtedly the highlight of the conference was seeing Devine fall off the stage after giving his talk.”

On the other hand, ultra pro-big business republicans like Gerald Henderson of The Sydney Institute praised a fellow conservative: “Once upon a time there were few, if any, conservative voices in the Australian media. Not any more. Now there is a plethora of political conservatives. To name names – Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, Frank Devine, Miranda Devine, P.P. McGuinness, Christopher Pearson, Paul Sheehan, Imre Salusinsky."

The Prince of Wales is ahead of his time, but people realize that his ideas are a welcome contribution to the pressing problems of our time. Conservatives hate him for that and progressive people shy away from accepting him as a useful ally. This will not stop him to speak out. And we need his voice loud and clear.

Australian plants for The Prince of Wales
With a very successful and well attended luncheon the Australian Monarchist League (AML) celebrated the 60th birthday of The Prince of Wales in Sydney. The AML presented the future King of Australia Wollemi Pines as their birthday gift. The Prince of Wales will plant them at Highgrove.

The Wollemi Pine was discovered in 1994 and there are only about 40 of them in the wild (some accounts say 80 adult pine). Up to its discovery it was known only from fossils records and it was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago. It only occurs in one deep sandstone gorge in the Wollemi National Park.

Since The Prince of Wales was so pleased with the Australian gift, the AML decided to include a number of Australian Dicksonia Antarctica ferns as well. Philip Benwell: “A decision was therefore made to gift to Prince Charles sixty ferns.” These will be delivered to Highgrove in March 2009 for planting. The Dicksonia Antarctica, known as the Soft Tree Fern, Man Fern or Tasmanian Tree Fern is an evergreen tree fern native to parts of Australia, namely Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria.

The fern can grow to 15 m in height, but more typically grow about 4.5 to 5 m. The large, dark green, roughly-textured fronds spread in a canopy of two to six m in diameter. The shapes of the stems vary as some grow curved and there are multi-headed ones. The fonds are borne in flushes, with fertile and sterile fronds often in alternating layers.

To raise money for the purchase of the gift, the AML started a special ‘Prince of Wales’ raffle, which will include a print of one of Prince Charles’ paintings. Raffles tickets are sold at $ 5.00. Should you be interested in buying raffle tickets, please contact the League’s National Chairman
secretary@monarchist.org.au

A popular King
An opinion poll shows The Prince of Wales would now make a more popular King than Prince William.



Prince Charles's 60th birthday presents
Choosing a 60th birthday present for a man who has everything is always difficult but in the case of the Prince of Wales the answer is simple: buy him a shrub. Read more here.

Plants, shrubs, and trees for his garden at Highgrove will be the most gratefully received gift for the Prince who yesterday received a cake in the shape of a bus pass. After his 60th birthday yesterday the Prince is entitled to travel free on off-peak local bus services anywhere in England. His face was embossed on the pass.

The Prince and Duchess of Cornwall spent most of yesterday visiting projects linked to his charity the Prince's Trust which has helped hundreds of thousands of young people into work over the last 30 years.

He attended the launch of the trust's first Youth Week to highlight the good that young people can do in society. He smiled when Naiyer Qureshi, a life coach, broke protocol, stepped forward and planted a kiss on his right cheek during his tour of two trust projects in Beckton, east London.

As part of his campaign, 50 MPs across the UK will be shadowed during their constituency visits by young volunteers whose life has been turned around by the Trust. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is supporting the project. The Trust has forged an alliance with 14 other national youth organisations, including the NSPCC and Barnardo's, to counter negative stereotypes of young people. Premiership football stars, including Rio Ferdinand, will visit Trust projects.

The Prince posed for pictures in front of dozens of photographers who called out to him. The Prince barely raised a smile and then made a barbed joke at the press, saying: "Sixty years of trying my patience," which made them laugh.

The French view


Clip de présentation de l'Alliance Royale

by

Doumenge_Mistral, French Royalists of the Alliance Royale present an alternative view for France.

Happy Birthday, Your Royal Highness!
So, nobody is interested? Another claim made by Australian republicans falls into pieces. Articles published on Prince Charles’ 60th birthday are among the most demanded. This afternoon, when I checked The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne’s The Age websites for articles on the heir to the Australian throne I discovered they rated second in both lists of Readers' most viewed news items. It seems, people are interested in His Royal Highness’ life and birthday celebrations.

News agencies reported on a documentary that was produced for his birthday:

But he sounded philosophical about his position as he reflected on his landmark birthday.

"It is all in the hands of the good Lord as to whether I survive or am vaguely compos mentis," he told a BBC documentary to mark his birthday.

"Our life is so short and insignificant in the great scheme of things."

Asked if he enjoyed his role, he replied: "I don't know."

"Well, there's bits of it," he added.

"It is something that I feel I must do to help as many other people as I possibly can and this country."

Commentators dismiss suggestions he is frustrated, noting that he has found personal happiness after marrying long-time companion Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005 and focusing on his extensive charity work.

"Commentators dismiss suggestions he is frustrated." Well, not all. Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian loved to interpret the heir’s philosophic thoughts in a different way. On the eve of his 60th birthday, Prince Charles has revealed that he enjoys only "bits" of his job, but does it because he feels that he must.

The Prince of Wales has initiated 20 charitable organisations “from Glasgow to Kabul”. Isn’t he allowed to ask what will happen to these organisations that have helped hundreds of thousands of people since they were founded? It would be irrisponsible not to worry about their future. As King he will no longer be allowed to run the charities. His constitutional position as Monarch forbids any kind of fundraising for his own projects.

Once again it was his honesty that was used against Prince Charles. Asked if enjoyed his role he replied: “I don’t know. Well, there’s bits of it.” A politician would have said in a loud voice: “Yes, of course, I do love my job and I am happy to do it”, even if in his/her mind s/he thinks differently. Politicians must give the impression to enjoy what they are doing. Spin doctors would never advise a philosophical attitude as Prince Charles is used to show. I leave it to you to decide which attitude is more honest.

I am glad The Prince of Wales speaks out for his charitable causes and the environmental topics that are dear to him (and to me). Happy birthday, Your Royal Highness!!!

Prince Charles' 60th Birthday and the Australian media - Part II
Do you expect the Australian television networks to broadcast a programme to honour the 60th birthay of The Prince of Wales?

I haven't found anything that could indicate that the next King of Australia's charity work or his dedication for the environment would get a mention on 14th November.

What about asking the ABC about Prince Charles' birthday programme? Write to the ABC


Again the German broadcasting system ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen) has a documentary that is not only broadcast today, but it is also available on the internet.

Just click here and enjoy the 30 minutes on The Prince of Wales' life. Of course it is free of charge.


By the way, ZDF offers a video on Her Majesty the Queen as well. The 43-minutes documentary can be watched by clicking here.

Brown, Republican
As a republican Senator Bob Brown knows how to use symbols. He launched his latest initiative to enforce a vote on whether Australia should be a Constitutional Monarchy or “a” republic on 11th November, hence on the 33rd anniversary of Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam government. Republicans love to see the 11th November 1975 as their starting point. But their marathon run is far from close to the finish.

“Greens Senator Bob Brown will today introduce legislation to enable a vote at the next federal election on whether Australia should become a republic", reported the ABC from the nation’s second chamber. "’This is a bill to have a plebiscite with the next election in 2010 to ask people whether they want a republic - yes or no,’ he said” according to the ABC. Neither Senator Brown nor the ABC said that the so-called plebiscite has no meaning at all. The only way to change the Australian Constitution is a referendum with a majority of the popular vote as well as the majority of the states approving the change.

Bob Brown certainly has merits and on other topics I agree with him, but I would appreciate if he and the Greens would concentrate on more important issues, like the climate change, a better use of water, a functioning public transport system worth this name, the avoidance and re-use of waste etc. Aren’t these fields not wide and challenging enough? If these issues are dear to you, wouldn't you look for like-minded allies?

"This is a thing about values and how we value our nation,” Brown said. Has he spared a moment about the values of the Constitutional Monarchy? Has he thought about the good examples members of the Australian Royal Family set? I am sure, he and Prince Charles have many things in common and they could enjoy long discussions on all subjects that are dear to the green soul. The whole nature of Monarchy is about endurance and sustainability. The Monarchy leads back many generations and encourages to think in generations to come, and not only to the next election day.

I am not afraid of the peope’s vote, I am angry that once again money should be spent on “a” republic, while the money could be spent for far better projects, especially in environmental hot spots. The republic discussion diverts the attention from these important issues.

I would very much like to know, what the Aussie republicans will do, when the Australian people will once again say NO! to their plans. Will they give in or will they push for more votes until their aim is achieved?

It is a pity the republicans force the tax payer to finance their ambitions, but after all, that’s exactly, what politicians always do: Spend our money. The Queen of Australia doesn’t cost the Australian taxpayer a cent. The next NO! to the politicians republic should settle the matter.

Let’s come back to the symbol of 11th November. It was also Armistice Day in 1918 and marked the defeat of Germany and her allies. Could be a symbol you aren’t after, Bob.

Affirmation Day 6 November
David Flint had the idea to name the 6th November 1999, the day the Australian people were asked if they wanted a politicians’ republic Affirmation Day. “On 6 November 2008, constitutional monarchists celebrated Affirmation Day, when nine years ago, the people of Australia in all states affirmed their wish to remain united in an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”

Republicans claim the question was "too difficult". Today it may be appropriate to come back to the question and the referendum results:

6 November 1999
Establishment of Republic
Question 1

A Proposed Law: 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.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 sought 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.

Rupert Murdoch lectures
Rupert Murdoch lectured the Australians about “a” republic – again. In the Boyer Lecture he gave on 2nd November 2008 he made a confession that surprised nobody: “… if I were in a position to vote, it would be for a republic”. Well, Rupert, you are not in such a position! Go and vote for a US president. Or better: Go and sort out a proper electoral system in the country you call home! Or are you proud of the acknowledged "voting technology failures (that) are so widespread in the US" as reported here?

He is silly enough to advocate “a” republic, because “we should be independent”. We? Why we? Has he become an Australian citizen again? In the same breath he advocates Australia becoming a member of NATO. Murdoch: “Though NATO was designed to prevent a land war in Europe, it is now fighting well beyond its borders.” And he wants Australia being dragged into this mess? Is he not aware what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Has he looked at the globe recently? Australia does not lie in the Atlantic, and particularly not in the Northern hemisphere. Who are the head guys in NATO?

It is hardly the Queen as the Australian sovereign who leads our soldiers into war.

The question is not if Australia should become a republic. The question is if Australia should have a Monarch or a Murdoch sponsored head of state.

70th Birthday of Queen Sofía of Spain

On 2nd November Queen Sofía of Spain celebrates her 70th birthday. She was born Princess Margarita Victoria Friederika of Greece and Denmark almost exactly three years to the day after Greece had voted in a referendum to restore the Monarchy (3rd November 1935).
King George II of the Hellenes had returned after 12 years in exile, but he and his Romanian born wife Queen Elisabeth had no children, therefore Princess Sophia’s father was Crown Prince of Greece. In 1947 he ascended to the Greek throne as King Pavlos I. When she was born in 1938 Princess Sophia was second in line to the Greek throne until the birth of her brother Konstantinos on 2nd June 1940. He succeeded his father in March 1964 as King Constantine II of the Hellenes.



Drawing of the young Princess Sophia for Admiral Stavridis

The Greek Royal Family was again forced into exile in 1941, when German and Italian troops invaded the Kingdom. The Royal Greek Army fought bravely against the powerful enemies, but they could not prevent the occupation. In an adventurous escape Crown Princess Frederika and her two children fled first to the island of Crete, then to Egypt and finally to South Africa, where the family stayed until in 1946 another referendum affirmed the Monarchy in Greece.

Princess Sophia with Greek peasants

During the Greek civil war and the years of reconstruction in the 1950s Princess Sophia fulfilled her duties as a member of the Greek Royal Family.





















King Pavlos and his son, Crown Prince Konstantinos, held the crowns above the heads of the royal couple during the wedding ceremony in Athens.

On 14th May 1962 she married Prince Juan Carlos of Borbón y Borbón in a colourful ceremony in Athens. Between 1963 and 1968 the couple had three children: Infanta Elena (* 20th December 1963), Infanta Cristina (* 13th June 1965) and the heir to the Spanish throne, Infant Felipe (* 30th January 1968).

After General Franco’s death Prince Juan Carlos was proclaimed King of Spain and the return of the Monarchy, which had been approved in a referendum in 1947, was completed in November 1975. A new democratic constitution was drawn up and accepted by the Spanish people in a referendum. In the difficult years of the renewed Monarchy as well as democracy and with various attempted coups by adherents of the old regime Queen Sofía was at her husband’s side to encourage and inspire him.

When celebrating his 30th anniversary on the Spanish throne, King Juan Carlos thanked Queen Sofía "for her constant support, sensitivity and commitment”.

On her 70th Birthday, the huge majority of the Spanish people [plus myself] will cherish their Queen and wish her a long life at the side of her husband, King Juan Carlos I.

Prince Charles visits Indonesia at a time Australian media await the death of the Bali bombers
While the Australian media eagerly wait for the execution of the Bali bombers, Prince Charles has arrived in Indonesia. The heir to the Australian throne will visit rainforest conservation work on Sumatra island before travelling to Jakarta to meet Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Prince Charles will also travel to Yogyakarta on Java island to meet the city's hereditary Sultan Hamengkubuwono X. Recently Indonesian Monarchists defended his institution against republican attacks.

Local media reported heightened security around Jakarta's Halim Perdanakusuma airbase in the lead-up to his visit, which comes as Indonesia prepares to execute three Islamist militants behind 2002 bombings on Bali island that killed more than 200 people, 88 of them Australian. Authorities in Indonesia are guarding against a possible violent backlash by supporters of the bombers.

Australia’s next King took up the initiative and set up the Prince’s Rainforest Project. You can sign up here and receive his newsletter. Prince Charles has a special interest in the SE Asian/Oceanean region. His visit to Indonesia is an example how he gets first hand information and promote his ideas.

A pity, he is so close to Australia, but our politicians did not invite him to come downunder and explain his Rainforest Project. But I am sure to find nasty comments in this country's media. For instance “Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty” Barry Everingham will find it appalling that the heir to the throne missed Australia. He will of course not write immediately, but will wait until a British tabloid had reported on Prince Charles' visit to Indonesia, then and only then will “Melbourne personality and columnist Barry Everingham” publish his nasty remarks in the HeraldSun or may be in The Age, which is always open to republican prejudice.

I am sure the Australian republicans will blame the Prince for not touching Australian soil, as if Prince Charles would have refused an Australian invitation. In a Constitutional Monarchy like Australia, the Prince of Wales acts on the advice of His mother's Australian government's advice.

Prince Charles' 60th Birthday and the Australian media

Prince Charles, Australia’s future King, will turn 60 on 14th November. The Australian media get ready for the birthday celebrations in a way they deem appropriate. And as always, “Melbourne personality and columnist Barry Everingham” acts as leader of the pack in hunting down the heir to the throne. Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday HeraldSun of 26th October 2008 contained the article Royal affair killed Kanga that was originally published on 11th October by Christopher Wilson in Britain’s The Daily Mail The lonely death of Charles’s other mistress. Strangely enough, the Sunday HeraldSun gives credit to a “Charles Wilson”. Obviously the Australian journalists were so obsessed with the name Charles, that they accidentally replaced Christopher with the Prince of Wales’ first name.

Except some minor editing the original article was copied, however the new headline had a malicious accusation. And there was another major change: The opinion of Barry Everingham … a Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty, as he was previously introduced by the HeraldSun, was fiddled into what was a personal testimony of Christopher/Charles Wilson on the life of Lady Dale Tryon. She was born in 1947 to a wealthy Melburnian family and died aged only 50 in 1997. The article infers that Lady Tryon’s “beauty and Australian informality” won the Prince’s heart. “Did we know that her nickname Kanga came from HRH’s very own lips?”, Wilson asks. And the speculation goes on: “She had given herself to the Prince of Wales and he had loved her, for however brief a time.” All this is far from hard evidence for anything else, but that Dale and Prince Charles were good friends.

Refering to her tragic death, Wilson recalls all her illnesses: “There was a recurrence of her childhood spina bifida and, as she fought this off, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer.” In 1996 she checked herself into Farm Place, a fashionable rehab clinic to rid herself of her dependence on painkillers. "While undergoing treatment there, Kanga fell from a window, shattering her spine." She started fantasising that someone was trying to kill her. She and her husband divorced the same year. She travelled to India, contracted an illness, returned to the UK, went to hospital and developed septicaemia and died in November 1997.

A tragic life, certainly, and a sad end to former fashion icon, but what does Melbourne-based republican and a commentator on royalty Barry Everingham make of this story? The Sunday HeraldSun: “Everingham is certain Lady Tryon was very much in love with Prince Charles and believes their relationship had an effect on her declining health. ‘Her break-up with Prince Charles may not have been the cause for her demise, but it didn't help. She had a broken heart.’''

This is just short of accusing the Prince of Wales of being responsible for Lady Tryon’s premature death. A ridiculous assumption considering her long list of illnesses that go even back to her childhood.

At least republican Barry Everingham’s efforts to manipulate an English article and use it for his own purposes are easy to unveil. Is that all Australian republicans can raise to fight the Australian Crown? Who is more dependent of "mother England"? Australian republicans can't even write their own articles. They can only add nastiness to British tabloid news items.

“Politicians should leave history to the teachers”
It is a popular and frequent demand, what The Age writer Tony Taylor asked for: “Politicians should leave history to the teachers”: Yes, right, but who should give the teachers the guidelines? Journalists? Committees? Boards? Expert panels? Tony Taylor is involved in the National Curriculum Board's school history deliberations. Sounds like a very respectable enterprise, but who appoints the board members? Politicians!

It seems, you cannot escape politicians when school curriculums are drawn up.

In his article Tony Taylor lead an attack against Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott who regretted “that there were not enough facts about English history in the current National Curriculum Board framing paper on school history”. Instead of a serious debate about history lessons – and Australian history lessons in particular – Taylor writes “the colonial cringe aspect of Abbott's remark was soon wittily countered by John Hirst's remark that Abbott remembered he was a (British) monarchist but forgot he was a (Roman) Catholic.”

I never considered Tony Abbott to be a British Monarchist. As a former Australian cabinet minister he is undoubtedly Australian and therefore he should be called an Australian Monarchist. And to be honest, I did not understand, why the description of him as a (Roman) Catholic was put in brackets. No one ever assumed Tony Abbott being a Maronite or a Chaldean Catholic, not even a Greek Catholic. Should this be a hint to the Act of Settlement? And should this be a particular problem for Tony Abbott?

Tony Taylor states: “It is generally the neoconservative side of partisan politics that, in a projectionist way, still sees history as a battleground for the hearts and minds of school students but which itself is keen to smear, interfere and impose.”

My guess is that every politician sees history as a battleground. And everyone at the helm in the education departments wants to impose his or her points of view on the poor school pupils. But from my own experience I can appease both sides. Pupils tend to adopt the opposite points of view of their teachers and their curriculum providers. The political backlash comes with every new generation of school leavers. The once universally praised values of 1968 and the years following are today held responsible for all what is considered wrong in Western societies. Australia might not have the ideological fight over what 1968 student revolts brought, but take a short look at Europe, where this year a kind of war of words broke out on the 40th anniversary of the student riots and the rise of terrorist groups in France, Germany, Italy and other countries.

Taylor denounces “the belief that there is an immutable, factually objective historical truth out there that needs to be captured, brought into the classroom and drummed into student heads. This naive and simplistic analysis is totally evidence-free.” I can only agree with him. There is no “objective historical truth”, never has been, never will be. The way we see history changes constantly.

That should be taught to school children.

A good example how history is a constantly floating meandering river is the famous question that was put forward to the Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, what he thought about the French Revolution.

Here are a few answers I found on the internet. You will notice that not only does the question vary, but also the time of the answer changes. And in the course of time other people were supposed to have given the answer.

This is Wikipedia's quote: Zhou Enlai is supposed to have said, when asked about the impact of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".

New World Encyclopedia: When China's Premier, Chou En Lai was asked in 1972 whether he thought the French Revolution had been a good or a bad thing. He mused for a few moments and then replied "It's too early to tell."

A Turkish website: Chou En-Lai, the late prime minister of communist China, was once asked what he thought about the French Revolution. He declined to comment, and explained, “It's too early to tell.”
That was in the early 1960s.

Good is this one from the Australian Government's Austrade site: As Chairman Mao said when asked what is the impact of the French revolution, he famously replied: “It is too early too tell.”

Dalton State College, USA: In 1989, at its 200th anniversary, a Chinese philosopher [Mao and Zhou were already dead by then, an anonymous author had to be found] was asked the importance of the French Revolution. He responded, "Too early to tell."

And here a website that gives the history teachers in general the credit:
how much does anyone know about the french revolution? i remember having an english professor who used to tell us that it’s too early to tell the effect of the french revolution.

What answer would politicians prefer? And what answer would history teachers give?

Crisis? What Crisis? French president inflates his annual budget by 11.4%
The world may face a recession and money might be short in all government budgets – except one: The Elysee Palace can swim in money. The French evening news France 2 revealed that Nicolas Sarkozy’s budget will grow by 11.4% next year.

Gallia Watch writes: "After giving himself a 206% salary increase in October 2007, and at the same time, tripling the budget of Elysée, the Sarkozy inflation continues. The news goes back to October 3, but hardly made waves. Les Echos revealed a new increase in the budget of the "hyper-presidency". When the budget had gone from 32.3 million euros to 100.8 million, the Palace, to justify itself, pointed to the "ensemble of operating costs and of personnel that was formerly covered by a dozen ministries, not directly by Elysée." For our part, we preferred the explanation that His Smug Highness required no fewer than 800 functionaries in his exclusive service! The indecency of this budget is blatantly evident when you realize that Sarkozy's predecessor, Bon-Appétit-Chirac, had already increased it by... 463% over that of Mitterand!

"Well, next year, the budget of Elysée Palace will reach 112.3 million euros, or a new increase of 11.4%."

Queen Elizabeth II should ask Nicolas Sarkozy how he could increase his budget without causing a public outcry. After all, Buckingham Palace needs to be repaired, but the British government rejects the Queen’s plea to provide £3m for the most urgent repair works. While presidents can just grab whatever they want, Monarchs look like beggars when it comes to the necessary funds to run the state affairs.

Who said, a republic would come cheap?

This Icelandic Royal Standard was established by Royal Resolution No. 23 of 5 July 1921, after Iceland became a separate kingdom in 1918.

Failed republic of Iceland
Iceland is bankrupt. Time to reconsider the hasty step to proclaim a republic. Iceland became independent from the Kingdom of Denmark in 1918, but remained a Monarchy and shared the same Monarch with Denmark: King Christian X, just as The United Kingdom and Australia share a Monarch – Queen Elizabeth II – or as Austria and Hungary has shared a Monarch since 1867. The Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph was also King Franz Joseph of Hungary.

During the US occupation Iceland was declared a republic on 17th June 1944. Today the Icelandic Krona's free fall on the international currency markets is surpassed only by the catastrophic failure of Zimbabwean currency. One of the country's three banks, Glitnir, has been nationalised; another wants money from its customers. Foreign currency is running out as international banks refuse pleas to lend money.

The Icelandic people will see a drop in their standard of living and the country will return to fishing rather than financial services. Iceland's near financial meltdown has been seen as the biggest yet faced by any country over its financial sovereignty in the 14-month-old credit crisis.

On 5th October the prime minister Geir Haarde made an emotional address to the nation. “There is a very real danger, fellow citizens, that the Icelandic economy, in the worst case, could be sucked with the banks into the whirlpool and the result could be national bankruptcy. No responsible government takes risks with the future of its people, even when the banking system itself is at stake. The Icelandic nation and its future takes precedence over all other interests.

"If there was ever a time when the Icelandic nation needed to stand together and show fortitude in the face of adversity, then this is the moment. I urge you all to guard that which is most important in the life of everyone of us, protect those values which will survive the storm now beginning. I urge families to discuss together and not to allow anxiety to get the upper hand even tough the outlook is grim for many. We need to explain to our children that the world is not on the edge of a precipice and we all need to find an inner courage to look to the future."

He should have revoked the 1944 proclamation of the republic and asked Queen Margrethe II of Denmark to become Queen of Iceland. British actor John Cleese had formulated a similar Notice of Revocation of Independence in his famous Letter to America (“To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. …")

Ndebeles want to restore Monarchy in Zimbabwe

There is hope for Zimbabwe: A Monarchy. "Amid widespread economic vandalism and open regional marginalisation, the ostracized Ndebele minority are making fresh calls to restore the Ndebele monarchy in Zimbabwe.

"The renewed calls for the restoration of the monarch, overthrown by British colonialists more than 135 years ago, comes amid grinding poverty in the region and a lackadaisical official response to the humanitarian crisis gripping the two Matabeleland provinces – bastion of support for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party.

"Frustrated by what they see as their marginalisation by Robert Mugabe’s predominantly Shona government, Ndebele chiefs and political activists have started mobilising to revive their kingdom."
The whole article

Bear or Moose? - The Age is unbearable

The republican arguments against the Monarchy are getting thinner day by day.

Instead of giving us a clue how the life of the average citizen would improve, should the Monarchy be replaced with a republic of some sort, Graham Reilly likes to pose as animal rescuer. Using the latest attack of Peta activists against the bear skin wearing guards outside Buckingham Palace, The Age’s “senior writer” concluded: “If there were no royals, there would be no need for such regal helmetry.”

But why stop there? Go one step further, Graham: Abolish the vice-presidential position in the USA to rescue the Alaskan moose from being killed! Or do you make the now famous Alaskan moose hunter vice president to save the specie?

Tom Parker Bowles, the Duchess of Cornwall's son, told The Daily Telegraph (23rd July 2008) about Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals): "They are absolutely mad, these people. Once, I was writing an article about a snail farm and the farmer pleaded with me not to publish its name, or he said the farm would be picketed by protesters." Peta's terror methods would let the intruders on the Brumby family's farm look like friendly guests. However, it seems when it serves the republican purposes, they are welcome bedfellows.

The Joys and Scares of Republicanism

Contrary to the bright future in flourishing democracy and in prosperity that republicans claim "an" Australian republic would be, this is what a direct elected presidential system could hold in store. In a letter to The Age of 1st September 2008 a reader expressed these fears:

I am perturbed, no, I am absolutely terrified when I think of the ramifications of McCain’s selection of a running mate. If anything should happen to John McCain, and let’s face it, he is 72, we would then have an untravelled, inexperienced, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty (these on their own seem to be a contradiction) pro-creationist, pro-drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness, woman with an accent that could cut glass as president of the most powerful country in the world. Does the world really want or need this? I certainly hope not!
R. H., Beaumaris, Victoria

A rather scary portrait of a possible US vice president or even US president. An elected monarch for four years with men and women nobody knows waiting in the shadow to take over the administration not only of the 300 million US cititens, but to a large extent, of us all. Instead of a cabinet or a party leadership with lots of names the US voters vest all their hopes – or fears – on four people. Who will form the next US administration? Nobody knows. That’s an even scarier thought than the potential vice president Sarah Palin becoming president.

Although our Monarch exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, and other institutions. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. The Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land - its authority is not absolute).

The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, (s)he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour.

Solidarity with the striking journalists

If you had thought the strike of The Age’s journalists would attract some sympathy from the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) you are wrong. On the ALP’s website you find an article concerning “Protecting rights of workers & promoting balance between work and family”, however, it has nothing to do with striking workers in Victoria. When you click, you discover that’s very old hat. The article "Fresh Ideas For Work And Family" dates of 17 October 2007.

Under the date of 28th August 2008 the ALP pats the Brumby government on the shoulder by reproducing a government press release: “Highest ever Victorian business investment - New ABS figures released today show Victoria outperformed the Australian average by attracting the highest ever level of private new capital investment in the past quarter.” The loss of 550 jobs at Fairfax media is not worth being mentioned. Obviously the ALP doesn’t want to upset the owners of The Age.

Monarchists have nothing to lose and nothing to gain from The Age, therefore I can easily declare my full solidarity with the striking journalists of The Age. I wish them luck in their fight against the further decline of what was once a quality newspaper for Victoria.

Freedom of the press

When Paul Sethe (12. 12. 1901 - 21. 6. 1967) was publisher of the German daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung he pointed out: “The freedom of the press is the freedom of 200 rich people to express their opinion.”

These days we in Australia see this grim remark come true. After The Age’s editor-in-chief was sacked on Wednesday, this Friday the Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton had to go. According to the ABC Carlton refused to write his regular column for the paper's Saturday edition because of the current strike by journalists and editorial staff. “He was told that he would no longer be writing for the newspaper as a result.”

The Australian media who so freely criticise everything and everyone – especially our Royal Family and the institution of the Australian Monarchy – cannot stand being criticised themselves.

Paul Sethe was wrong only in one aspect: In Australia it is not 200 people who can express freely what they want. The number is closer to 20.

The Age kicks out staff

Fairfax media, owner of The Age, announced the sacking of 550 people – 390 in Australia, 160 in New Zealand. About 90 journalists will have to clear their desks.

The announcement came just eleven days after The Age proudly printed: “Today we are able to report on our quarterly circulation and readership figures, which are among the best The Age has ever recorded.” On the Monday to Friday level, The Age announced an increase of 3,000 or 0.4% compared with the June 2007 figures, The Saturday Age was up 0.5%, only The Sunday Age registered a drop of 3,000 readers.

In terms of money, The Age of 22nd August announced a net profit of $386,900,000 (+ 47%), revenue $2,900,000,000 (+34%).

These figures are just rubbish when it comes to real profit: “Fairfax Media’s pledge to scrap 5% of its staff within three months was rewarded with a 5% jump in the publisher’s battered share price.” (The article was published on 27th August only in the printed version of The Age, I did not find it online.) Good for the author who confessed he owns Fairfax Media shares. The sacking of 550 staff will bring Fairfax media an extra revenue of $50,000,000 and the shareholders a higher value in shares.

Today’s Age had problems explaining the jubilant figures the paper published last week: “What has happened in the intervening five days?”, asks Mathew Ricketson. He has difficulties finding an answer: “It is not at all clear. Fairfax media, as I wrote last week after the results announcement, has been trying for years to navigate its way through the gradual dismantling of the business model that has sustained newspapers for well over 100 years.” And then he continues a swan song on the printed media, that totally contradicts the bright outlook The Age itself distributed on 15th August 2008.

The self-praise was then written by Andrew Jaspan, The Age’s editor-in chief.

It seems, he became the first redundancy: The Age sacked its editor-in chief on Wednesday morning.

“In a note to staff, Mr Churchill said the company had ‘decided that for this next critical stage of The Age we would have fresh editorial and executive leadership’.

"’The editorial leadership team have my highest confidence. I know they will excel in leading the editorial staff of The Age to ensure The Age's continuing success,’ the note to staff said.”

The Murdoch paper MX commented: "Age sacks editor - one down, just 389 to go".

I have often had reason to complain about the lack of quality journalism in The Age. The new development does not instil confidence that there is a chance for an improvement. With less editorial staff it must be feared that journalists will have less time to do a proper research and in-depth reporting.

We can only be sure that the fierce republican attitude of The Age will remain. And the paper's outlook into a bright republican future has as much credibility as the stories on The Age's success.

"Our President is now our Emperor"

US journalist Glenn Greenwald: A virtually omnipotent President is just an assumed fact of American political life, and the reason that there is such a fixation on the personality and "character" traits of the presidential candidates is because Our President is now, in essence, our Emperor, empowered unilaterally to do everything from attacking other countries to acting outside of and above the law. As Penn's analysis illustrates, our political establishment isn't bothered by that at all, but instead, just tacitly accepts it as the natural and desired state of things.

Since Pelosi and Reid took over Congress, the Congress has funded the Iraq war without even a symbolic condition. It has rejected every proposal to limit war spending. It has enacted one right-wing proposal after the next, from warrantless surveillance and telecom immunity to declaring parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization." It passed a housing bill and "stimulus" package approved by the administration. It has done nothing to reverse the radical executive power theories and has done much to institutionalize them. If there is one predominant trait of the Congress over the past several years, it has been a willingness to grant every item on the the President's wish list regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in control.

I can hear Australian republicans say: "Well, that's not, what we want in Australia." But what kind of republic do they want? The politicians' republic was rejected in 1999. Will they offer an Emperor's republic next time?

Making a stand for the Monarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Republic spokesperson Graham Smith told reporters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not my cup of tea

Barry Everingham’s newest attack on the Queen of Australia did not pass unnoticed. In The Age of 22nd August was another letter to the editor: “HOW Sad. Perhaps we should invite the Queen to Australia to have afternoon tea with our athletes?” This short statement was crowned with a cartoon ridiculing the Queen: “This is not my cup of tea.” In combination with an anti-monarchist cartoon the letter to the editor sounded rather pro-republican.

However, Adrian Jackson, who had written the letter, happens to be a Monarchist. Previously he had sent pro-Monarchist letters to The Age. How could he send in a letter that obvioulsy supported Barry Everingham? As a matter of fact, he didn’t. On my enquiry he replied: “The Age only published part of my 50/50 letter today as my critism of Barry Everingham was deleted by them and the letter twisted to sound a bit anti Queen. I rang The Age about this. I bet his letters don't get censored or amended.”

You cannot really be surprised by The Age’s bias, but this kind of censorship borders on manipulation. And for this kind of editing The Age claims to be a quality paper? Incidents like this demonstrate the lack of a quality newspaper in Victoria.

Tea with the Queen of Australia

For once Barry Everingham tried to be funny: “The Australian head of state is reported to have already asked members of the successful British Olympic team to afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace. Where is her invitation to her successful Australian team? Am I missing something here?" (The Age, 21st August 2008)

Yes, he is, but that doesn’t come as a surprise. I assume the Queen of Australia’s representative, the Governor-General will be very happy to receive every Olympic sportsperson and all the men and women in the background of the team as well. And I am sure, Her Majesty herself would like to receive them, unless, SHE is not invited. It is Her Australian Prime Minister who must sent notice that Her presence would be welcome. In a Constitutional Monarchy such as Australia the Monarch acts on Her Prime Minister’s advice.

Barry Everingham’s complaint goes into the wrong direction: He should blame Prime Minister Rudd that Her Majesty does not spend more time in Australia.

Or do I hear in his letter to the editor of The Age Barry Everingham’s plea for a resident Monarch?

Withdraw from Afghanistan - Re-establish the Monarchy!

It is very sad news from Afghanistan: “Ten French soldiers killed in Afghanistan ambush” reported the media on 20th August 2008, “the deadliest ground attack on foreign troops here since the US-led war was launched in 2001. The shock ambush also left 21 French troops wounded. President Hamid Karzai's spokesman however rejected suggestions that insurgents were closing in on Kabul.”

Why are young men and women sacrificing their lives in a war that is unwinnable? The politicians should be blamed who are sitting in air-conditioned conference rooms while they decide on Afghanistan’s fate. And on the fate of young people. More than 180 have died in Afghanistan in 2008. Most of the French soldiers killed were barely 20 years old. What utter nonsense of Sarokzy to tell the mourning comrades "your work in Afghanistan is essential for the 'freedom of the world' and must continue" (according to The Age).

Asking for more troops – as the US president likes to do – only shows that none of the Western politicians understands Afghanistan. Their soldiers are no longer considered liberators as they might have been in 2001, but they are seen as occupying forces. And they are treated accordingly. There is a reason why Afghanistan was never conquered.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy with all his usual pathos promised to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, he did not consider the cost of human lives. After all, after the attack on the French soldiers he spent just 6 hours in the country. None of his sons has joined the French army to help fulfilling their father's military promises. They have comfortable lives in Paris, learning the trade of political intrigues, of which their father has been a master. None of them is a Prince Harry who spent ten weeks in Afghanistan.

From the start the basic problem in Afghanistan has been that the Western powers installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as president and ignored the wish of the majority of the Loya Jirga members to put King Mohammed Zahir Shah back on the throne. The best the internatinal community could do to keep the Taliban forces at bay is to declare Crown Prince Ahmad Shah Khan next King of Afghanistan.

King Mohammed Zahir Shah did not fight to be restored to the throne and had to be satisfied to play the role of godfather — "Father of the Nation" — to the new regime, which is, in a way, a pity. For such a particularly diverse culture as Afghanistan's, a Constitutional Monarchy could have provided a focus of national unity instead of stirring the factional passions that are rising and rising.

Spiegel online reported Prince Mustafa Zahir (44) claimed 1,347 deputies out of 1,500 of the Loya Jirga had voiced their support in parliament for his grandfather as head of state. “Who exactly pushed his grandfather aside, he won't say -- what he means is that the Americans wanted Karzai and no one else from the very beginning. ‘But as a normal citizen,' he says now, he has been 'disappointed by the Karzai regime.’” Prince Mustafa Zahir might be a King in waiting, at present he heads the Afghan agency for environmental protection, "the same rank as a minister".

Bombing the whole country has failed as well as stationing 50,000 soldiers from Western countries to bring peace to Afghanistan. "By extending its participation in 'Operation Enduring Freedom', Germany is not making the world a safer place, said Deutsche Welle's Nina Werkhäuser. Isn't it time Berlin jumped ship?"

After everything else failed in Afghanistan - why not try the King?

Crown Prince Kardam and his wife Miriam

Bulgarian Crown Prince severely injured in car crash

The eldest son of the Bulgarian King Simeon II (71), Crown Prince Kardam (46) was severely injured in a car crash on 15th August. The car accident happended in a Madrid suburb. The Crown Prince suffered cranial fractures and lost both hands. He was flown by helicopter to the Madrid clinic 12 de Octubre. His accompanying wife, Crown Princess Miriam, suffered several bone fractures, but her life is not in danger.
King Simeon and Queen Margarita of the Bulgarians

The couple has two sons, Prince Boris and Prince Beltrán, and lives in Spain, were King Simeon had been in exile until he returned to Bulgaria as the country's Prime Minister.
Outside the Madrid clinic: Queen Margarita of the Bulgarians with her sons, Prince Konstantin, Prince Kubrat and Prince Kyril.

Royal Grace - Republican Disgrace
“Sometimes all it takes is a little Grace” is a key sentence in the British black comedy “Keeping Mum”. Usually grace is connected with Royalty, republics are disgraceful. Do you want proof? Then notice the difference between Nepal and Zimbabwe.

Nepal’s King Gyanendra left the Royal Palace after the Constitutional Assembly had declared the Monarchy abolished. Media for Freedom called it a “graceful exit" and documented the King’s speech on a press conference on 11th June 2008. The Monarch said:

"I would like to inform everybody concerned that when seven years back because of an unnatural, unexpected and tragic incident while shouldering the responsibility of the Head of the State according to the national heritage and ages of old monarchical traditions, I had no other interests except considerations for the sovereignty, independence, national pride, territorial integrity, peace and the institutional development of democracy, and overall progress of all the citizens. In the Hindu kingdom of Nepal, the birth place of Buddha the efforts started, with the best of intention trying to ensure the peace and prosperity in the country were not successful overtime, which I have already accepted earlier. The chain of events and ensuing results are obvious to everybody like an open book.

Respecting Constitutional Assembly elections and the decision taken by the constituent assembly meeting on Jestha 15th, I am cooperating in every way towards the successful implementation of that decision. I have also not thought of leaving the country. I would like to live in my own Motherland and contribute in whatever way possible to greater good of the country and peace in this land. I believe that there will be support for this from all sectors."

On the other hand Robert Mugabe who has been in power in Zimbabwe since 1980. He has refused to recognize the results of the 29th March elections.

Instead he was “re-elected” as the Brisbane Times reported:
"Robert Mugabe was sworn on 30th June to a new term as Zimbabwe's president and called for dialogue between the country's political parties after a one-man election widely denounced as illegitimate.

"After taking the oath of office from Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku at his State House residence, the 84-year-old leader issued an appeal for "unity".
Mugabe was assured of a landslide victory after Tsvangirai pulled out of Friday's presidential run-off, saying rising violence had left nearly 90 MDC supporters dead and thousands injured.

"Tsvangirai won the first round on March 29 with 47.9 per cent of the vote against 43.2 per cent for Mugabe, just short of an outright majority.
Defying international and regional calls for him to postpone the election, Mugabe pushed ahead with the vote anyway, warning against outside interference in his country's affairs and shrugging off Tsvangirai's claims of violence."

And why is Mugabe clinging to the presidential chair? “Only God can unseat me”. Obviously he is thinking he was put in power “by the grace of God”.
LiveNews said: “His mother told Robert Mugabe when he was a child that he had been chosen by God to be a great leader.

No wonder he thinks only divine power - not elections, not foreign critics, not a crumbling economy or a much younger opposition leader - can unseat him.

In the mind of Zimbabwe's leader of nearly three decades, reality is summed up by a massive banner hanging in the entrance to the presidential offices: Mugabe is Right.”

Republican presidents have neither style nor a conscience. They are simply graceless. Long live the King!

Prince Charles in defence of the small farmers

Prince Charles, the future King of Australia, has hit out again. To no one’s surprise he, the organic farmer, dislikes genetically manipulated (GM) food. Being no politician he can speak out freely and call it what it is: "a gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong". Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster".


"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said.

"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand. And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

Small farmers, in particular, would be the victims of "gigantic corporations" taking over the mass production of food.

The interview was given to The Daily Telegraph and was partly reported by The Age.

More Australian Context
Australia’s future King also refers to his realm: "Look at Western Australia," he said. "Huge salinisation problems. I have been there, seen it — some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture.

"If you are not working with natural assistance you cause untold problems, which become very expensive and very difficult to undo. It places impossible burdens on nature and leads to accumulating problems which become more difficult to sort out," he said according to The Age.

Prince Charles’ remarks are highly welcome in Australia. Victoria’s Labor government removed the four-year ban on growing genetically manipulated canola in November 2007 despite resistence in the Labor caucus. Premier John Brumby ignored the opposition of “about half of Labor’s 74 MPs” (The Age 27 Nov. 2007): “This is Brumby’s arrogance and cash-through style at play here, said a Labor MP who declined to be named. “He’s good at numbers but he can’t read people.” My local Labor MP to whom I wrote to ask her if she was among the opponents of GM crops did not reply to my letter. I can only assume, that she is supporting Mr. Brumby. Well, Ms. Barker, food lovers cannot support you in the future.

Australia is worse off than other countries, especially the EU, since there is no labelling of GM ingredients in food products. With Labor in power nationally as well as in all states you would have thought, protecting “Australian working families” would be a priority, but you’re wrong. It is still business that is protected by Labor. Why is it possible that food producers in the EU can include information on GM content in their nutritional information - and in Australia that is too difficult? Or too risky?

Good to have the heir to the throne who speaks out against GM food.

Chinese Communist TV gave Greek King and Queen the preference

The politicians in Greece who try to wipe out and re-write the country’s history of the past 100 years must have received a shock, when they watched the opening ceremony of the Olympic circus last week. The Chinese television showed the entry of the world teams, with the Greek athletes traditionally the first to enter the stadium. The Greeks received a roaring applause from the audience – and from King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes, who were present in the stadium, cheering towards the Greek athletes. King Constantine II who won a gold medal for Greece in 1960, was visibly very proud to see his countrymen entering the arena.

The Greek royal couple were treated in the same way the Chinese showed pictures of head of states, royalty or prime ministers for other participating countries. Not a single moment was spared for any Greek politician – should they have been in the stadium. Who would recognize them anyway? Can you name the person who today calls himself president of Greece?

Strangely enough the tightly controlled Chinese television gave King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie the honours some European countries deny them.

Did you miss the stadium scene? Send me an e-mail and I can help you out.

Coronation of His Majesty King Siaosi (George) Tupou V of Tonga
The Anglican Archbishop of Polynesia, Jabez Bryce, crowning the King of Tonga

The coronation of the King of Tonga, His Majesty Siaosi (George) Tupou V that took place on 1st August 2008 in the capital Nuku’alofa, cost the astonishingly low sum of five million Tongan US dollars ($A2.6 million). Nevertheless critics will say that the Polynesian Kingdom could not afford this expenditure.

Help me, when was the last coronation of a Tongan King? Yes, in 1967 the father of the present King was crowned. After 41 years the country could not afford a ceremony that would last in the memories of all those who participated or watched it on TV? In these 41 years ten US presidential inaugurations took place. France had seven inaugurations, and even if the latter one is not as ritualized as the USA’s presidential coronation, how much did it cost?

How much money is spent on any president’s taking office? Try to answer this simple question, then multiply the sum with the occasions that had taken place since 1967. And only if you can name a single republic, where the money spent on these ceremonies in 41 years is lower in proportion to the Tongan population, only then you are allowed to criticise the Tongans for having a colourful and memorable ceremony to honour their King.