QED

What Has the Monarchy Done For Us?

For 117 years, Australia – along with Canada and New Zealand, has enjoyed unparalleled political stability. Notwithstanding our Western heritage, the reason Australia is considered in the top tier of nations, while being neither militarily nor financially as powerful as our geography might suggest, is because our democratic and cultural infrastructure has allowed our society to flourish. Our quality of life, low levels of corruption and our national ethos of ‘a fair go’ are directly attributable to the representative Westminster model and creed used across federal and state parliaments.

With republicans once again licking their lips at the thought of a second referendum it is critical to understand why a section of society looks with such scorn at the Royal Family being the ultimate guardian of Australian political integrity. The first reason is simple but not trivial: sitting atop the crown there is a cross, an ancient reminder that there is greater power watching, judging and, yes, influencing the actions of the Monarch. Divine Right is not fantastical notion; it is central to the concept of Monarchy. Spiritual power trumps temporal power – which is the first reason why, in post-Christian Australia, monarchy is so often frowned upon by those who no longer have time for God.

The second and more widespread reason why some Australians take issue with constitutional monarchy is because it is British. These are the same flag-hating people inclined to assert against the evidence and record that, rather than sporadic and unrelated skirmishes, organised ‘genocide’ was implemented against Aborigines. These people like to claim the British Empire was a bad thing and that the pink coloured territories on the map between 1650 and 1965 stood for tyranny, rather than civilisation, commerce, industry, democracy, science, health breakthroughs, farming, the arts, the rule of law, an independent judiciary and the abolition of slavery.

Indeed, although over 75% of Australians still have Anglo-Celtic ancestry it is apparently the more diverse migrants from the past 35 years that make this country great. The Orwellian ‘diversity is strength’ mantra is what, apparently, makes Australians Australian.  In other words, we are greater and better for renouncing what we had always been until the social engineers stepped in to set things right according to their own metrics.

What makes Australia great is its British heritage. It has shaped our national character, from our now fading irreverence before authority to our non-PC humour, also now all but gone. Then there is our sense of civic duty and our empowerment of the individual. I’m not saying other cultures haven’t contributed to our society, because they obviously have. I’m talking about scale.

Let’s simplify it further: without non-British immigration would Australia still be Australian? Of course it bloody would. But would Australia be Australian without our British heritage? No, it wouldn’t.

The third reason republicans want the removal of the Sovereign and a change in our Constitution is that they simply don’t understand the document itself. As the clamour from the likes of Peter FitzSimons grows louder we will hear the zealots demanding “an Australian Head of State”. Our Governor-General – presently The Honourable General Sir Peter Cosgrove – is our Head of State. The GG appoints the government, grants assent to parliamentary bills, presides in the Queen’s place as supreme commander of the defence forces and has the power to call elections and sack corrupted or ineffectual governments and officials.

Only once in federal politics have reserve powers been invoked, that being the removal of Gough Whitlam in 1973. A controversial action – but one that history, if not Labor partisans, has judged as an example of a Governor-General exercising precisely the duty expected of him when the tawdry venality of party politics plunges the nation into an uncertainty that verges on chaos. The best aspect about the Governor-General’s role it is apolitical, something which none of the republicans’ new and past models cannot be matched. In an age where the political spectrum is so polarised, never before has there been such a need for a unifying, non-partisan Head of State.

The 1999 referendum was lost by the republicans because they exhibited contempt for the simple truths held dear by ordinary people. The people elect politicians to carry out their will, not to decide it for them. Upon the Queen’s death — may that day be far off —  republicans will renew their assault, the phalanxes of academia’s cultural Marxists and limelight-lusting ‘enlightened’ celebrities marching out to discredit our history, tarnish our splendid and successful model of governance.

Ask yourself this: do you want to have to vote for a partisan Head of State? Or would you rather retain a system that deliberately and specifically renders the head of state exempt and above the fleeting fashions and passions of the moment? If the answer is not obvious it should be.

25 thoughts on “What Has the Monarchy Done For Us?

  • mburke@pcug.org.au says:

    Bravo. The simple fact that zealous republicans wilfully ignore, or stupidly fail to understand, is that our constitutional Monarchy and its constitutional representative, the Governor-General, is a powerful unifying force in our society. A political Presidency will absolutely guarantee that at least 50% of the Australian population will be at best ambivalent about any incumbent if they don’t actively detest them. Diversity is strength is a contradiction in terms.

  • whitelaughter says:

    the obvious point though is that the republican dream suits the seatwarmers in parliament who have nothing to offer. Can’t think of a decent policy? Bleat for a republic!

  • Alistair says:

    Im one of those strange folk – an atheist who believes that Australia will die without Christianity and a Royalist who believes the Queen was a complete disaster..
    Her complete lack of leadership during the collapse of the Anglican Church (she is supposed to be Defender of the Faith is she not?) is but one example.
    The complete lack of any leadership from the palace over the Brexit crisis after HER government refused to accept the results of the referendum of HER people is but another..
    The complete lack of leadership during the Covid crisis when HER government was playing fast and loose with democracy is but a third.
    The family abdicated all responsibility for leadership back with William and Mary and have been quietly doing nothing but opening flower shows ever since.
    I can’t help wondering just how many shares the Royal Family has in Vanguard, and whether that might offer some explanation to Britain’s woes?

    • Sindri says:

      Forgive me Alistair, but what you mean is, the Queen didn’t intervene in those matters to take action that you approved of. What would you have said, however, if she had intervened and taken action that you disapproved of?
      That is precisely why the Queen can’t intervene in political controversies. It’s the strength of the system.

    • Watchman Williams says:

      Perhaps the greatest failure of our constitutional monarchy was its failure to refuse to sign the Australia Acts into law unless a referendum was held. This unlawful legislation removed from Australia’s subjects of the Crown their (unwritten) constitutional right to appeal to the Crown in Council, the common law right of every British subject.
      This trampling of the rights of citizens by the political class really made the Westminster system redundant in Australia.
      What we need now is a thorough re-working of our entire Constitution by Conventions of citizens, not politicians.

    • Watchman Williams says:

      Perhaps the greatest failure of our constitutional monarchy was its failure to refuse to sign the Australia Acts into law unless a referendum was held. This unlawful legislation removed from Australia’s subjects of the Crown their (unwritten) constitutional right to appeal to the Crown in Council, the common law right of every British subject.
      This trampling of the rights of citizens by the political class really made the Westminster system redundant in Australia.
      What we need now is a thorough re-working of our entire Constitution by Conventions of citizens, not politicians.

  • padmmdpat says:

    I commented earlier today to a friend, “Just see how the Greens will weigh in with a call for a Republic. ” And Adam Brant obliged. What he and his fellow travellers full of inverted snobbery, envy and a desire to pull down so as to grab power, fail to accept is that we will always have kings and queens. They just might have other names. After all, the Chinese Republic today has an emperor and Russia is ruled by a Tsar. And Victoria is ruled by a Caesar.

  • Alistair says:

    I just put this comment up on JoNova, just to put the Queen and King Charles in their correct perspective …
    With reference to Charles III – I just note this link …

    Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media? You’ll Never Guess.
    “BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, combined own The New York Times and other legacy media, along with Big Pharma.“
    By Dr. Joseph Mercola 06/18/21
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/blackrock-vanguard-own-big-pharma-media/

    Blah blah blah ” … BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.
     Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds.“

    The thing that caught my eye was the sentence …

    “The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.”

    It suggests to me that one should never consider the Royal Family to be anything other than part of the World Economic Forum / Davos set.

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    Alistair, I couldn’t disagree more. Your comment clearly demonstrates the definition of a cynic: someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    I’m surprised at your evidently profound ignorance of the British monarchy’s constitutional role. She might be titular head of the Church of England, but she is not responsible for doctrinal matters. She plays no role in the political affairs of “Her Government”, and this is the main, if not the only reason that the Monarchy has survived into the 21st Century. Would you have tolerated our Governor-General interfering in our Government’s political affairs?

    And, incidentally, how do you know that the Queen made no comment about those issues? Simply stated, you don’t know and can’t know what was or was not said.
    The one certainty is that virtually all the criticism of Queen Elizabeth II since her death comes from the depths of ignorance so profound that the critics should be ashamed of themselves.

  • BalancedObservation says:

    The Westminster system has been a good system of government for Australia and the UK. Essentially it’s allowed our countries to flourish because it embodies a well organized, tested and evolved system of democracy.
    .
    Where a straight monarchy exists – without the strong democratic element the Westminster system has – it’s less likely to yield such benefits. I’d argue it’s the democratic element which is the critical element.
    .
    I would also add our wonderful concept of a “fair go” has little relationship to monarchy itself. The two concepts are arguably at odds with each other.
    .
    It’s arguably potentially highly problematic to assume that our system of government works well because at its apex is a particular Christian God as this article seems to imply.
    .
    People legitimately follow a number of different Gods in our country. Or no God at all. Our evolved Westminster system not only allows a pluralism in political thought but also allows various religious beliefs and beliefs in different Gods to co-exist peacefully.
    .
    One of the reasons the Westminster system is successful is because it’s evolved to do that. The pure monarchy, the precursor of the British Westminster system, burnt people at the stake for differing religious views.
    .
    Our evolved Westminster system is in marked contrast to a number of governments today which are in fact based on a belief system that one, the particular God of those with the power, is actually at the apex of their government. There are Governments which really act on that premise. Ours doesn’t. In a number of such countries we’ve seen on-going murder and hatred for countless decades based on differing religious beliefs.
    .
    A number of people have very strongly held views on either side of the monarchy debate in Australia. But from my observations most Australians aren’t concerned too much either way about the issue.
    .
    I think that says a few things. Our Westminster system is working pretty well – it’s allowed us to flourish. It also says we have a pretty easy-going culture.
    .
    And pointedly perhaps most importantly our practical application of the Westminster system doesn’t push some of the notions this article seems to express. For example the notion one Christian God is actually at the apex of the system or the seemingly somewhat confused implication that we are still now as a nation somehow essentially British.
    .
    I think if governments did start enthusiastically expressing those notions in practical ways, support or rather lack of opposition, concerning the monarchy, would change to actively oppose it.
    .
    It’s my view there’d be a big challenge to the monarchy in Australia if governments started embodying or pushing some of these notions by say reintroducing God save the King as our national anthem or insisting on Christian prayers in schools; or wanted say school curriculums to express that we are still somehow essentially British and there was one Christian God at the apex of our system of government.
    .
    If that happened I think you’d find a pretty easy-going Australian population would come to oppose the notion of monarchy which pushed those views.
    .
    It’s fitting here to acknowledge the contribution of the Queen who we’ve sadly just lost after a lifetime of service to the people and the Westminster system of government. She’s done more than any single other person in history for the Westminster system of government. There’d be very little debate over that.
    .
    But paradoxically that also draws our attention to a flaw in monarchies and constitutional monarchies. They depend to a very large extent on who the monarch is, or in our case, who the monarch’s representative with the powerful reserve powers is.
    .
    Sir John Kerr may have been “apolitical” but he was hardly “unifying”. Under our system he had immense reserve powers and arguably appeared to have the potential to be a loose canon. When I view his drunken public performance at the Melbourne Cup I’d hate to think we had a Governor -General like he was again. If you think I’m wrong view this YouTube link:

    https://youtu.be/-cjJ0ok5T1Y

    I think that video showed how exposed a system based on concepts of monarchy is. A system which relies far more heavily on the quality of the individual in power.
    .
    It has never been an issue with our last Queen. But imagine a Sir John Kerr as King. Unlike with political leaders who we’ve recently seen are easy to get rid it’s much harder to remove a poor monarch or a poor representative of a monarch.
    .
    Unlike many I don’t want to knock the new King before he’s had a chance to do anything but it’s my view there will be a lot less support for the monarchy now the outstanding lifelong service of the last Queen has come to an end.

  • Daffy says:

    I’d have thought that Victoria was ruled by a Nero, not a Caesar.

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    Balanced Observation, while I generally agree with your comments, I think that taking Sir John Kerr’s Melbourne Cup meltdown as characteristic of the man is unfair. Peter O’Brien paints a very different picture of him in his book “Villain or Victim”. The way the despicable ALP and its leftwing media running dogs treated Sir John after the dismissal would have tried a saint.
    I fear for the future of our constitutional Monarchy and Westminster system of government when the idea that the Monarch has powers that the Queen refused to exercise seems to have taken root. I think it was Walter Bagehot who defied the Monarch’s rights that, if I remember correctly, are effectively limited to the right “to be advised”(of Government policy), and the right “to warn” the Prime Minister. Those are the effective limits to the British Monarch’s constitutional powers.
    I think Charles has done his and the future Monarchy’s credibility (and that of his viceroys) unprecedented damage by his outspokenness on the inherently political environmental issues. This will inevitably be magnified as he begins his reign just as the UK enters a winter in which the poor will suffer the disproportionate hardship from the effects of fuel starvation that have resulted from misguided environmental policies. If so, in that he will reap a great deal more odium than anything Sir John earned.

    • BalancedObservation says:

      Thanks for your response Doubting Thomas.
      .
      I take your reasonable point that it may have been uncharacteristic of Sir John Kerr. However it looked atrocious when the Governor-General of this country behaved so poorly at a very public event which he knew would be watched by millions in Australia and a world-wide audience.
      .
      It’s absolutely impossible to even imagine in your wildest dreams that our last highly respected Queen would ever have behaved as Sir John Kerr did no matter what the circumstances were. It is also absolutely impossible to even imagine that anyone would ever have to defend anything she did with the argument it was uncharacteristic of her.
      .
      And our last highly respected Queen would never have behaved in a political way like how you point out Prince Charles has. She was far too astute for that, with impeccable judgement about how her role was executed within the Westminster system. (Incidentally I commend you for expressing the rarely made point that the poor will disproportionately have to pay contemporary environment policies).
      .
      I think what you said underlines what I said about how dependent we are on the quality of the person who happens to be the monarch. We were certainly very fortunate with our last Queen but there’s no guarantee that the heritary system will always produce anyone near her calibre.
      .
      There’s no selection or quality control process involved. It’s simply a matter of where the person is in the hereditary line-up.
      .
      And the whole system has to live with a dud if the heritary system throws up a dud. That flaw in the system has been hidden for 70 decades by the outstanding performance of our last Queen.

  • garryevans41 says:

    The mainstream media barely reported the decision of the Australian Football League not to observe a minute of silence to mark the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II before the matches of AFLW Round. The AFL hierarchy decided because there had been no consultation with “indigenous” liaison officers it was preferrable not to observe the minute of silence considering it is the AFLW indigenous round. Respect, goes only one way and that is not for our institutions or the majority of Australians.
    The ubiquitous “welcome to country” and “acknowledgement of elders past, present and emerging” however, proceeded as planned.
    Is this “voice” of recognition and reconciliation; our Prime Minister wants Australians to enshrine in our Constitution without providing any details on how it will work or potential consequences?
    We are being asked trust our elected representatives.

    • Brian Boru says:

      Garry; as an irreverent republican who only supports the Monarchy because it works for us I could tolerate the lack of a minutes silence for our late Queen.
      .
      I must however acknowledge how well she kept her promise to serve us as she said (whether her life be short or long).
      .
      What I cannot tolerate though is the craven respect given to aboriginal elders which extends therefore to rapists and pedophiles. Nor can I tolerate the thought of an apartheid like racist Voice which would be the antitheses of the egalitarian values most Australians hold.
      .
      That is why whenever I hear that “acknowledgement” I say aloud “I don’t agree”. I encourage others, who do not wish to acquiesce to this racism, to do the same.

  • Mike O'Ceirin says:

    I think the question has to be asked why those that advocate a republic are so desperate. There are many things that the Greens desperately want which I think would be disaster. The ending of all mining for instance and the reliance on wind and solar emissions. Australia is a country that Australians made and contributed to but the Greens wish to vilify and tell us that we are all rotten to the core. They pretend there was little that was unsatisfactory with Australia before the white man came even though very few of us do not share that white heritage. We should acknowledge very strongly what the white settlers did for us.

    • pmprociv says:

      Mike, you must realise that the Greens see themselves as our future aristocracy (just like the Bolsheviks in revolutionary Russia). They’ll take what’s rightfully theirs, thank you, leaving the scraps for the proles and serfs to fight over. There should be enough sunshine and wind about to allow them to live in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed. The hoi polloi can eat cake.

  • Farnswort says:

    Well said, Mr Pattison.

  • talldad says:

    Thanks to BO and DT for some excellent discussion.

    But “It’s arguably potentially highly problematic to assume that our system of government works well because at its apex is a particular Christian God, as this article seems to imply.” misses the point.

    Her Majesty was ever-conscious that the Crown does not wield Absolute Authority but only delegated authority.

    Our system of government depends on the existence of a hierarchy of authority. You may not want the Supreme Authority to reside in the Christian God, but the absence of an ultimate source of authority at a level far above humanity leads only to a) communist totalitarianism – a different form of hierarchy or b) anarchy – every man for himself.

    • BalancedObservation says:

      Thanks for your generous response talldad. I also valued DT’s response to my post. It’s so pleasant to have these debates without extreme and disrespectful language.
      .
      But I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on the point that we need a higher “ultimate source of authority at a level far above humanity”.
      .
      My first problem with that is I don’t believe – along with many others – that such an authority above humanity that could offer any practical help in government even exists . So for people like me you’ll therefore understand your idea is a non starter.
      .
      I should add that the existence of an ultimate authority above humanity – be that a Christian God, or any other God or authority above humanity – is based on belief. And to be fair that’s also the case for those like me for whom there’s no ultimate authority above that of humanity. That’s also a belief. Either side could be right or wrong.
      .
      While I’m confident with my view I’m not dogmatic or arrogant enough to assert I’m irrevocably right on that issue. And I therefore respect differing views on the existence of an authority above man.
      .
      But … and this is a gigantic but. Even if a higher authority above humanity did exist, it would be hard to see how that authority could reach down to a practical level to help with government. It would rely on human interpretation and communication.
      .
      We’ve seen how virtually impossible that would be to work by the very existence of so many religions with opposed notions of what their Gods are saying.
      .
      Apart from that it would make us unacceptably vulnerable to the power of those interpreting, communicating and implementing what the ultimate authority above man was saying. How could they possibly be challenged? All they’d need to say : it’s God’s will or the ultimate authorities will.
      .
      You don’t need to take my word on this second point. It’s actually happening in countries today. There are Governments which really act on the premise that one true God ( the God of those with the power) is actually the government. Ours doesn’t act on that premise. In a number countries we’ve seen on-going murder and hatred for countless decades based on differing religious beliefs – countries where one God is claimed to be the ultimate authority of government.
      .
      A system of government which accommodates in harmony the varying belief systems in our community is our best hope I believe. And what we’ve got with our democracy is pretty good at that. It’s not perfect. But as a concept it’s probably the best we can hope for.
      .
      That doesn’t mean we should not seek to improve our democracy – to make it fairer, more just, more efficient and more effective. There’s scope for that. But overall democracy is still the best concept we’ve got in my view. Even with all it’s imperfections.

      • pmprociv says:

        BO, you propound a well-articulated case, and I think I (as a non-believer, but “agnostic” — still awaiting incontrovertible evidence of a deity) have to agree with you. The monarch’s role is largely ceremonial (for entertaining the masses), but also a critical fallback for emergencies (a la Kerr and Whitlam). All one need to, to see the place of religion in power structures, is take a peek at Tsar Vlad in Moscow: an avowed atheist sucks up to the local church to set up a powerful symbiosis, from which both can then parasitise and cower the population (although I suspect Vlad has pushed his luck a wee bit too far in Ukraine — he should have listened to his God more carefully, although the religious boss fully supports his criminality, which should make true believers wonder).

        • BalancedObservation says:

          Thanks for your comment pmprociv.
          .
          Nice to get another response from someone who has an appreciation of both sides of the argument. Unfortunately these days that’s becoming less common than it used to be…in many forums.
          .
          The fact that the reserve powers of the Governor-General have been rarely exercised can give one the impression that the exercise of them is not something to be too concerned about.
          .
          I think that’s generally the view of Australians. It’s probably one of the key reasons which account for the fact that becoming a republic is not a huge issue in Australia. The other is undoubtedly the outstanding service by our last Queen. Of course there are a number of extremely strong views on each side of the issue but they’re probably in the minority.
          .
          However while the potential powers of the Governor-General may have been rarely excised they can be substantial. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the removal of the Whitlam government by Sir John Kerr using his reserve powers it was certainly a very significant act involving considerable power. Many agreed with it. Many were against it.
          .
          You may say it’s a “critical fallback for emergencies. However while you apparently agree with the appropriateness of the exercise of the reserve powers in the Whitlam government’s case – their use in that instance is still open to heated debate. There’s no consensus on the Whitlam government’s removal still after all the years have passed.
          .
          However perhaps more importantly the reserve powers are not defined in the constitution. They’re based on convention and tradition. This means the exact nature and scope of these powers is arguable.
          .
          When such potentially dramatic powers – which are open to argument – can be exercised by one individual as part of our Westminster system it means a lot rests on the individual interpreting those powers.
          .
          It doesn’t reassure me that “Divine Right” is behind the concept of monarchy as this article argues. And presumably behind the concept of the Westminster system. I explained why in a couple of places in my posts above, describing how problematic the interpretation of God’s will has been in a number of countries.

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    September 12, 2022
    Well said, talldad, and well supported by history.

  • Les Kovari says:

    My greatest fear is that one day, somehow, the republicans might succeed. If Australia became a republic, just imagine the rush of the grubs, the likes of Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, all trying to pass each other to become the President and/or, the Prime Minister. The whole idea is utterly gross. I am nearly 92, I escaped from communist Hungary in 1956, after the uprising was defeated. I could not go through that again. I grieve over the passing of the Queen, I think she was the nicest, most gentle and compassionate human being. I hope, with a bit of luck her Son, Charles III will be equal to the task. Monarchy might be old fashioned but, so were long skirts.

Leave a Reply