Matt Thistlethwaite must be feeling a little lonely right about now. Young Matt is Albo’s point man on the Australian republic, that perennial non-solution to a non-problem, the issue that almost no one outside the beltway ever thinks about, the thing that forever fails to stir the punters out in the real world.
The hoped-for bounce in republican sentiment following the death of the mighty Queen Elizabeth the Second seems now a distant pipedream. It might still happen, though the number of monarchists who despise the former Prince Charles – I still resist calling him by his new title – probably exceeds the number of republicans who despise him. He is, of course, famously, one of them, if you get my drift. The entitled, leftie, globalist, greenie from central casting.
We have witnessed an astonishing degree of weeping by republicans over Her Majesty’s passing. Daniel Andrew is re-naming hospitals after the Queen. Albo is all about, heaving and sighing and flapping and declaring days of mourning. He has been more Menzies than Ming himself, who famously “but saw her passing by” and would, indeed, love her till he died. Just about every leftie, republican journalist in our wide, brown land has boarded QF for Old London Town. One republican conservative (Greg Sheridan of The Australian) has even given the phenomenon and the new grouping a name – “republicans for a constitutional monarchy”. The headline read:
No change to the constitution could improve what we have.
I’ve been a republican all my life and voted Yes in the 1999 referendum. But if a referendum were to be held now, I would vote No.
Recent (13 September 2022) polling by Roy Morgan, among others, suggests that Greg Sheridan isn’t the only one to change his mind about a republic. Morgan’s headline read:
A resounding majority of Australians want to retain the Monarchy rather than become a Republic.
Now, we need to be clear. Republicans haven’t all-of-a-sudden converted, en masse, and the current “bounce” may not last. But the current mood is both noteworthy and memorable.
There are several reasons for the outpouring of grief and solemnity by those not normally given to it. One reason might be going overboard in an effort not to seem callous about what they see (wrongly) as the “inevitable” republic at the time of the Queen’s passing. Of course, this wouldn’t stop gauche try-hards like the Red Bandana’d One or Where’s Waleed, who are always up for tactical tastelessness. Nor did it stop a more measured Stan Grant from thinking aloud about colonialism. (Blaming the late Monarch for colonialism, a global phenomenon that has been with us since Adam and Eve and still goes on, unabated, even if it now includes reverse colonialism by itchy-footed Third Worlders, does seem a big call, it must be said.) But it is probably a factor in the sympathy we are seeing from the left.
Another reason might be the sheer sense of history and pageant in which just about everyone has been caught up. It has been difficult not to. The immensity of Her Majesty’s achievements, her peerless skillset as a leader, her dignity in office when all around her (including her own family and just about every graceless “leader”, in Britain and elsewhere) have been carrying on like contestants on Big Brother or Love Island, her capacity for creating unity in the face of endless and serious division in every direction (as Douglas Murray has noted), her wise counsel of British prime ministers from Churchill to (briefly, alas) Liz Truss, her hospitality to all comers from abroad, her gentle, common touch with her devoted subjects, all suggest that the solemnity of the past two weeks has been entirely appropriate and not unexpected.
Winston Churchill opined, in relation to his then new Monarch:
All the film people in the world, if they had scoured the globe, could not have found anyone so suited to the part.
Churchill was right, if One Nation Mark Latham MLC is to be believed. His retrospective view was that Queen Elizabeth made only two mistakes in 70 years.
Wow! Not a bad record, that no other world leader in human history (that I can think of) could hope to have achieved. (The two mistakes, which Latham conceded were debatable, were, first, the public relations missteps following Diana’s death and second, over the issue of economic sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid period. One might add a third. The Queen’s stated support for Covid vaccines a year or so ago was also a large step too far, for some of us).
The sheer longevity of her reign, covering fifteen British premierships, the disappearance of Britannia’s power and empire, the cultural revolution of the sixties, the entry into, then exit from, the European Union, the Cold War and sundry international crises, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and so much more besides, has, perhaps, caused a rare pause among the chattering classes to consider history and its import. Perhaps the world has seen in Elizabeth stability as well as grace in a world that has very little of either.
A third reason for near universal acclamation of the Queen at her passing is realism on the part of people usually critical of the monarchy and, perhaps, the rare appearance of good taste among those not always given to it. It is almost as though some of the late Monarch’s poise has rubbed off on politicians around the world. Her stature was so unassailable that even the second-raters about the place – at least the vast majority of them – could not muster the indecency to photo-bomb the sombre and historic occasion. Hence my suggestion that her critics and those of the monarchy itself and of her nation’s past were being realistic. They were recognising that that this was one occasion not to look like an utter political pygmy.
A fourth potential reason is less complimentary to those who, being politicians, simply love a party (and an international funeral) in order to be seen on the world stage doing solemn things. This is why politicians also love natural disasters. Many, like John Howard and Anna Bligh, manage to pull it off. Others, like ScoMo, seemingly, cannot. Few things that politicians do actually unite people. They are, therefore, loathe to avoid the opportunity when it arises.
Whatever the reason for the outbreak of all of this sober reflection, measured response, perspective and a break from the mindless, petty day-to-day bleatings of second-rate ideologues (aka politicians, academics, journalists and members of the corporate world), we should be especially grateful, again, to the one in whose name all of this good behaviour has surfaced. It won’t be long before the past two weeks are forgotten, and things return to normal. At least the politics we are forced to endure are likely to be occurring under the eye of skilled, seldom-noticed governors-general rather than a bunyip republic, for some little time yet.
Queen Elizabeth’s final gift to Australia might well be engineering, without even trying, a period of reflection down under on the enduring benefits of deft leadership in a minimalist constitutional system. The British monarch might come to be thought of as a friend with benefits. For all those who have come to profit from what should still be seen, and probably is by most (despite the loudness and endless anger of the voices of opposition), as a relatively benign invasion in 1788.
Long may her legacy reign.
Paul Collits
22 September 2022
I was a staunch Monarchist until the death of Her Majesty. I faithfully swore every Oath of Office I undertook to Queen Elizabeth. I’m glad I don’t have to cross my fingers should I have had to swear allegiance to Mr Windsor….a globalist, WEF and climate alarmist who knew he was destined to be Regent yet despite this he conveniently let us know exactly where he stood politically as opposed to his mother’s apolitical lifetime. My concern regarding a republic is solely based upon who we would end up with as President. An indication of who ‘they’ would appoint can be clearly seen by the controversial appointments of ‘Australians of the Year’…. Perhaps this sudden shifting of the breeze regarding a republic by the media might have something to do with Mr Windsor’s political leanings.
Not many think what it would be like if the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese or Chinese had taken possession of Australia. They have all had the opportunity at various times and I doubt we would be better of with any of them. China may still take up that role and bring Communism here.
There are many students who think that would be great, but as we know it never works out like the stories their Leftist teachers tell them. I doubt they would treat our "First nations" people any better than their Ugers who are slaves and organ donors for the CCP.
It tuns out that we have profited by speaking the most widely spoken language in the world that has also given us links to both the US and Europe through the UK. This has also connected us with the most bankable money and trade connections through the Commonwealth.
People change, die, some are good and others not so much, but these other benefits have been consistent over our short existence. That may change very soon with the money and markets collapsing around the world, but I would not trade living in Australia for any other country I can think of. I still have my farm and I can sustain myself for as long as I live. All I need is for some common sense with coal fired power stations to keep the power on for our industries to keep producing quality products so we can look after ourselves even if the rest go under. We are already there "Down under".