Right royal sleight of hand

It is quite clear why monarchists wanted the new king of England installed immediately following the old queen’s death. His mother Elizabeth was highly popular in her own country and across what was once – in an honest expression - called the British empire but which was transformed with a stroke of a golden pen into the euphemistically named ‘Commonwealth’.

The why and wherefore of the change in name are clear enough. The powers that be wanted the world to assume that their autocratic power would hitherto be shared around. In reality, the English monarchy continued to suck the riches from their former colonies in much the same way as they did before the name change.

This suited most English people because there was a trickle down effect which guaranteed that everyone in that forlorn little country gained some benefit from having the royals at the centre of the larger economy. What will happen to these complacencies now that the long overdue economic malaise has hit Britain remains to be seen. There is little evidence that the new Tory prime minister Liz Truss can lift Britain out of its post-Brexit depression.

Elizabeth was promoted as the mother of all the people across the Commonwealth. This cosy analogy with a family was handy for Australian monarchists who argued that we should postpone any thoughts of becoming a republic until after Liz had died. Now of course, they look for other excuses. Meanwhile for us republicans, a natural response to this royalist argument must be a temptation to celebrate. Most were too respectful to crack open the champagne immediately ....

It was a convenient myth that the English royals reflected the ideals of a happy family. Decades ago, the late folkie and songwriter John Dengate exposed this myth in his satirical ‘Royalty Shock’.

‘Royalty royalty shock! The Papers are saying each day’

Royalty royalty shock! Give them a cut in their pay

Royalty royalty shock! The boat is beginning to rock

Republican ceilidhs erupt when the dailies go

Royalty royalty shock!’

He went on to list the problems surrounding the ‘poor’ monarch, in the persons of ‘Phillip faux pas’, Charlie and Anne the horse lover. Dengate’s reminder of the realities of royalty was written before the world learned of the lack of discipline among Liz’s sons. We have since found that the fairytale Princess Diana was complaining of there being three people in her marriage with Charles, and Andrew has been accused of some scandalous behaviour in the USA involving very young girls. The Barmy Army, followers of England’s cricket team had one chant they sang in Australia, laughing at us with the reminder that Camilla would be our next queen.

Australians are a pretty egalitarian and pragmatic bunch. In most cases we judge people according to their sincerity, whether they are down to earth and on what practical skills they can contribute to the community. We appreciate people who do not give themselves airs, and almost revere those who like the Blaze Aid volunteers, roll up their sleeves and provide for those less fortunate than themselves.

How is it then that the royals, who have no rights to claim special status except entirely on the basis of their birth, claim they are entitled to special treatment? For example, they pay no death duties, have numerous staff to maintain their opulent palaces, claim to need twenty four hour security and expect the red carpet to be rolled out any time they ask for it.

Astute observers must be wondering why English King Charles does not intervene in the political chaos surrounding the prime ministership which has seen three incumbents in 10 Downing Street in six weeks! The case for a fresh election is strong.

And, in the case of Australia, the monarchy retains a special, archaic and anachronistic place of political privilege. Since 1975 and the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government, all Australians have known that this foreign, privileged institution vested in one person has had more power than the people at large hold collectively. We all know this, even if some Australians for their own convenience, refuse to acknowledge it. We delude ourselves that we are a democracy, but our democratic values are extremely limited. We do not dare to exercise them fully.

How has the fiction of a benevolent royalty been maintained? The short answer is that the monarchy survives in Australia because it suits lazy, greedy and dishonest media. While it was understandable that we should show respect upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, the respect should have been the same as that afforded any person.

The media exploited Elizabeth’s death and funeral to a level that can be described as cynical. ABC television joined the tabloids and commercial channels in its wearing of black. Glossy women’s magazines are naturally reluctant to let go of their dependence on the royals, the paparazzi and the dreams generated by princesses. These print sources and their electronic equivalents have in the existence of, and interest in royalty, ready sources of ‘news’, advertising and other products. They are not likely to surrender this lazy pool of revenue, power and relevance. Nor were Australian politicians slow to jump on this tabloid bandwagon. Even the avowedly republican Labor prime minister would not speak of republicanism in this time of mourning.

The sleight of hand comes in the form of well chosen adjectives. The royalist discourse emphasizes contributions rather than cost, the continuity of heritage rather than atrocities committed by the English in Ireland, Kenya, India and Australia, the apparent stability of imposed institutions rather than the ongoing problems with coups, famines and civil wars. It is presented as a matter of course that Elizabeth’s successors, regardless of evidence to the contrary, will be at least as wise and cuddly as she was held to be.

In 1999, the then prime minister caused the republican referendum to fail by convincing voters that the question which needed to be settled concerned Australia’s head of state. This was a cunning sleight of hand. Even constitutional lawyers are divided about who is currently our head of state. The problem with monarchy is a fundamental one. True democracy depends upon the assertion that we are all born equal. Monarchy directly contradicts this ideal. It is incompatible with democracy.

We should reject the royalist sleights of hand, whether engineered from Buckingham Palace or by lazy media. Maturity demands republican, genuinely Australian nationalism. Only then can we have a chance of re-setting our history so that it encompasses a genuine appreciation of Indigenous culture. We must acknowledge that modern multicultural Australia has a deep history and that the English contribution is relatively minor and on balance it has been retarding and negative. Bring on an honest republic!

Lead photo by Ryan McGuire. Body photo by Joe deSousa.

Dr Tony Smith is a former academic who now spends time busking and writing songs and reviews. He lives in the bush in the NSW Central West.