Are there any monarchists here?

[Violet_Crumble]

I promise I won't bite if there are any here. I was just curious having come away from a thread where a Canadian monarchist was in residence and wondered if there's any Australian ones at DU...

Violet...

[Hardrada]

1. There are some left??

and Rubashov could hear the tapping on the other side of the wall, spelling out, "Long live H.M. the emp........"

[no safe haven]

2. Hi Violet

I saw your replies in the Prince Harry thread. To be honest, I despise the idea of privilege, the aristocracy/gentry, including the whole concept of "royalty". (At the same time, I cannot help myself when it comes to gossip mags doling out dirt on the royals.) :shrug:

What is "royalty" anyway? Just a bunch of folks who share a very limited gene pool. The fact that this group of people, in reality, inherit a level of privilege, wealth and political clout because of that gene pool is anathema to my way of thinking. Some frumpy old woman with bad taste in hats and handbags and a dysfunctional family does not make her inherently "superior", even though the royals probably buy into that myth. All they're good for is playing polo and selling mags when they behave badly.

That being said, the alternatives put forward on the republic referendum (Turnbull vs. Jones) were no choices at all. Turnbull's proposition offered a US-style presidency, and Jones offered business as usual, let's all bow down to the mighty monarch. I left my ballot blank on that one - didn't like either choice. I would really like to see something along the lines of the Republic of Ireland where the president is more like our existing GG and the PM is the head of the representative parliament, where the power should lie.

[Matilda]

3. Of course, Howard deliberately skewed the voting

by giving us just one option for a republic. I think we should
have voted yes anyway, and screamed about it afterwards.

I was raised in a royalist household and still have a head full of
royal data, but I became a republican on November 11th, 1975. What
Kerr did infuriated me, not least because the Queen herself would
never have interfered as he did, even if she does have the right.
I couldn't understand why every Australian didn't feel outraged at
that meddling by an appointed official acting to serve his own
interests. If Whitlam had to go, we should have been the only ones
to decide. I realised then that the position of Governor-General
was an insult to the Australian people, and the sooner the need for
the position was done away with, the better.

[no safe haven]

4. I was living overseas during the 70s and part of the 80s

so I missed the Whitlam years and the dismissal. What happened to Whitlam was a terrible chapter in Australian history, that's for sure. While I was out of the country though, I was always proud to be an Australian with a PM like Whitlam. Such a forward thinking, compassionate and statesman-like leader. He represented everything positive about the country. And when he was ousted in such an underhanded manner I felt sickened, even though I was not close to the emotional epicentre of the whole drama. The fact that an elected official could be sacked by a non-elected old drunkard (some say a CIA stooge :tinfoilhat:) showed that Australia was still as much of a colonial outpost as it had ever been.

It was a small thing that made me long for the day that I would no longer have to look at Liz's face staring back at me every time I handed over a piece of small change. Sometime back in the 80s, Charles came to Australia on a trip with Di, I think so she could visit her sister. Whatever. Anyway, there was a small item the paper to the effect that it was going to cost the NSW taxpayers $10,000 so Charlie boy could go and play a 3 hour polo match somewhere out west. That did it for me. I don't know why.
Perhaps if I had been here in 1975 I would have "turned" sooner.

[SweetLeftFoot]

5. CIA stooges

Ever read The Falcon And The Snowman?

[Matilda]

7. Whitlam was, and is, a great Australian.

He was let down badly by many of his ministers who just weren't up
to the job - too long in opposition, perhaps. Or it may have been
that he picked the wrong people.

But his socialist principles were sound, and he taught Australians
for the first time to be proud of who we are. One of the things I
resent most about Howard is that he's taken us back to the bad old
days of cringing to outside powers. I really don't know how people
buy what he's selling; it must be a national inferiority complex.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

20. you hit on what galled me most

I'm not a monarchist in any shape or form, but I think the point you make about the G-G interfering in 1975 in a way the Queen herself would never have done is really important.

Can you imagine the Queen sacking the British PM?

[SweetLeftFoot]

6. As they say in parts of Ireland

Tiocfaidh Ar La.

We'll get our Aussie Republic.

[Matilda]

8. Of course we will.

But not under Howard, backward-looking little runt that he is.

Howard's lack of vision has caused him to miss out on two opportunies
to go down in history as an agent for progressive change - his
failure to apologise to the Aboriginal people and to draw up a
treaty with them, and to proclaim an Australian Republic.

Greatness offered to him on a platter, and the fool can't see it.

[canberra]

9. hate this being my first ever post at DU, but...

I'll bite.

I wouldn't exactly say I am a monarchist, but I think the current system works better than any republic model I've seen. Until there is something better to change it to, I think you have to stick with the status quo.

I think that having someone completely outside the system acts as a sort of circuit breaker. Under the model up for referendum, the PM could have sacked the President straight away whereas right now you would have that extra couple of hours while the PM contacted the Palace to tell the queen to sack them, which would cool down any crises and put a check on the PM's power.

It also had problems with it like if the President was sacked, he would be replaced by the most senior state Governor, meaning that the President of the Republic of Australia would be in effect appointed by the Queen of New South Wales.

When we change it needs to be done by each and every state and the Commonwealth at the same time.

Probably like most Australians, I just see it as a non-issue and all the changeover costs could be much better spent on a million other things.

As for Whitlam, whatever your views on that you have to remember that he was badly defeated in the 75 election despite the outrage over his sacking.

[Matilda]

10. I love saying this ...

welcome to DU!

[Djinn]

11. Personally I wont have a problem

if the revolution ever does turn up and they're all lined up against a wall, total wastes of space with no claim to fame other than producing the hordes of human ameoba that one would expect from centuries of inbreeding, plummy, pretentious polo playing rich arseholes with doubled barrelled surnames with no purpose on earth but to suck up the money of the working people who pay for their sponging ways.

I guess you could say I'm a Republican.

How many people would have liked to have voted for Whitlam after the dissmissal but also didn't want the country held to ransom any longer by the bastard Lib's blocking supply?

[canberra]

13. but 1975 was a double dissolution election

so the people had the opportunity to have voted Labor into a majority in the Senate and the Reps, if they so chose.

[velvet]

14. Quite so

And it was the biggest shock of my twenty-something life that they didn't. That was when I first grasped the power of the media. I was working in my mother's paper shop at the time, and saw all the papers every day leading up to the dismissal and through the election. With the exception of the (sadly missed) Nation Review all the papers were gunning for Gough and my customers were coming into the shop each day mouthing what the papers had told them the day before. All the good the Whitlam government had done was forgotten. Gullible bloody sheep with short, short memories.

A bitter lesson in realpolitik.

[Matilda]

16. The thing that turned Whitlam's relationship with the media around

was when he took one of Murdoch's television stations, in Tasmania,
off the air for 24 hours, because they had been exceeding the
allowed quota of advertising per hour. That was in the days when
Packer, Murdoch and Fairfax all owned newspapers and TV stations,
and they all turned on Whitlam. You're right - it had nothing to
do with his policies in other areas, he had interfered with their
right to make as much money as they could. And the public wouldn't
have a clue.

Today, they all exceed the quota of advertising, and Foxtel makes
no attempt to meet the quotas for Australian content, and nobody
in either party is game to take them on.

[velvet]

17. Aha

That explains a lot. Thanks Matilda.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

19. I can still remember

... people saying "Whitlam must've done something wrong to be dismissed by the governor-general".

It was the first election that I voted in and I can remember being outraged by the stupidity of those around me. (I'm kinda used to it by now!)

Yes, of course, the media helped skewer Whitlam as well, but the to average joe on the street, it was a simple case of the guy wasn't doing something right, he got "sacked" and we voted someone else in.

What seems ludicrous now is what a relatively decent Lib Fraser has turned out to be in recent years. I despised him back then. Now I think I reserve my scorn for Kerr.

Hell, I've been blogging about US politics too long. I automatically put a "y" on the end when I typed Kerr's name :-)

[Djinn]

15. how intelligent do you think the voting pop is?

understanding about supply bills and the senate's ability to block them was (and still is) beyond most voters - they just knew "whitlam couldn't get anything done" it's amazing watching vox pops from the time - people just didn't acknowledge that stuff wasn't getting done because the Libs wouldn't let it happen.

[foreigncorrespondent]

12. Not a monarchist here!

For many many years I refused to look at anything that was about the Royal family. But in recent years, old Lizzie is beginning to show a more softer side (think her stand on gay rights as just one thing), and I admit I do have respect for her now. But that doesn't mean I support her rule over our country, because I really don't.

I want to see Australia become its own Republic, but we are gonna have to wait to get someone decent in power, before it will happen.

[theresistance]

18. Australians are so apathetic about many issues

these sorts of issues are hard to get going. Look at the Iraq war and all of Howard's lies etc. The Republic issue is like this. But I agree with the comment that Howard sabotaged the Republic referendum. It should have been one question: "Do you support Aust becoming a Republic?"

[Caitabee]

21. No.

I'm not.