Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Those who say the monarchy is the glue that holds Australia together don’t understand the spirit of Australia, says Len Liddelow.
Those who say Australia would not be a successful and democratic Republic – either outright or by implication – because of their resistance to change, are not only anti-Australian and unpatriotic, but could also be classified as ignorant and possibly even stupid.
Further it seems to me they may not have been born and educated in this country, and so not had the good fortune to fully experience the true nature of Australian mateship; that sense of a fair go and undying spirit and generosity that emerges in times when fellow Australians – or for that matter fellow human beings – are faced with hardship and loss.
Those not born in this country do not have the unique, inherited and accumulated experiences of family predecessors that in some cases extend right back to convict times —but more often extend back through the 1950s, World War II, the depression, World War I and even further.
It is the stories and experiences of these times, handed down from generation to generation, that helps to shape the true Australian nature and spirit, a spirit that is so strong, and so distinct that many newcomers cannot fully comprehend.
The purpose of the story here is that during these times, nothing was ever done with the Queen or the Crown in mind. The Queen did not make a skerrick of difference to the way we lived our lives. When most Australian soldiers joined up for the first and second World Wars they did not beat their chest in a moment royal loyalty and say I am going to fight for King and country. In many cases, they joined up to escape milking cows or digging spuds or whatever boring and mundane occupations they had. Many had never been further than the milking shed, or the shearing shed, or the end of the Street where they lived, they wanted to see the world.
King, or Queen, and country were so remote and unimportant to Australians they were never given a passing thought. The same applies now. Of course, the Royal family with all its pomp and glory was and still is an everyday part of British lives. Good luck to the Brits for this; it is part and parcel of their traditions and make up. It is part and parcel of their inherited spirit.
But for David Flint or anyone else to say the Queen is the glue that holds this nation together is not only completely wrong, but also highly insulting. The glue that holds this nation together comes in two tubes. One: our Constitution, and two: the spirit of the Australian people.
And these two will make an extremely successful, democratic and indissoluble Australian Republic.
*****
5 Comments
With all due respect, Len, this is not quite so simple. Leaving Flint aside for a moment, please consider the following passage:
“It may cause you and your people surprise that I should myself take up arms in this quarrel, but then, you must not fail to remember that I am Australian-born, as is my wife and daughter , that my whole interest and sympathies are British.”
Was this Menzies? No. Professor Flint? No. Perhaps some other Australian of British origin? No. It was General Sir John Monash, German Jew by origin, as was his wife, and Australia’s most distinguished soldier whose funeral in Melbourne was the largest of any Australian before or since. I don’t think he could be described as an unpatriotic Australian – quite the contrary – or that for him the monarchy was incidental or remote, and he was surely not unique, which is why his funeral crossed all social and ethnic boundaries.
As regards monarchs’ roles in Australia, it might be worth quoting further from Monash’s private diaries, not intended for public view, regarding George V’s visit to Australian troops in France in September 1916. Monash was, he said, moved by a visit of “the King of so mighty an Empire”, and went on: “I then presented him to my brigadiers and battery and battalion commanders, and then we rode down together … I riding on the right of the King, and the Royal Standard behind us, and the rest of the retinue following. And then came the climax of it all … as the King rode by, each unit broke into deafening cheer, raising hats aloft on bayonets.”
When Monash died in 1931, another Jewish and ethnically un-British Australian, Governor-General Sir Isaac Isaacs stated that “With all Australia I mourn the loss of one of her ablest, bravest and noblest sons, a loyal servant of King and country.”
There are many more “ethnic” Australians who would not agree with you. Indeed, in many ways, republicanism is something primarily found among Anglo-Celts, and not even primarily Celts, for there are plenty of Celtic monarchists – Kerry Jones and the like – and plenty of White Anglo Saxon Protestant republicans like Murdoch. It is not an ethnic issue but a political one. Republicans regularly chuck in the ethnic dimension as ballast because they think that ethnic Australians ought to be even more republican than they are. But in reality, if anything, as Bob Carr acknowledged recently. ethnic Australians often regularly embrace the monarchy in Australia with a greater enthusiasm than the Anglos.
The republic is a heated issue for people on all sides, but there really is no use setting up facile caricatures that can easily be ridiculed. Whatever your views on a republic, it is in historical and contemporary terms a far more complex issue than you have set out here.
Thomas
No one has said this issue is simple, and why leave David Flint aside with his false and misleading assertions. Obviously you do not disagree with the fact our Constitution is an integral part of the strength of our political system. Are you questioning the spirit of the Australian people, a people we all know are made up of a myriad of Nationalities and diverse backgrounds. Every single Australian, with the exception of any full blood Aboriginals, has an ethnic background in its purest definition. I myself for example have English, Irish and Austrian forefathers.
Let me assure you there were numerous Australian officers in both wars that inspired and roused their troops to great heights. So much so that there are instances where some soldiers, when returning home, named their offspring after their Commanding Officers. No King or Queen was needed or even sighted, to do this.
Your response unwittingly highlights an extremely important factor in the Republican debate. Times are unimaginably different now to what they were then. In those times the crown was an integral part of our system of Government. The Westminster Act and the Australia Act have in effect divorced us Politically from Britain and the Monarchy and all it stands for is now completely irrelevant and redundant not only to our political system but also our every day way of life.
Thanks for your response, Len. The point is that the “Spirit of Australia” is not a clear-cut concept, still less is it unifying. There is certainly Russel Ward’s Australian Legend idea of nationhood, but as Luke Trainor and other scholars have pointed out, Ausralian nationalism in the 20th Century was predominantly monarchical rather than republican in character. I agree with you when you say that that was then, and that the relationship has changed since, but in your original posting you appeared to project disaffection back to “then”, when it was as you say still integral. Despite this, at the very least a sizeable section of Australians, including much of the rural areas where the Australian national stereotype comes closest to reality, would not agree with you about what constitutes the “Spirit of Australia”. That “Spirit” is a matter of opinion, not verifiable fact, and those who disagree on either side of this are no less Australian. It would be unfortunate if – to recall an earlier phrase elsewhere – there were to be constituted a Committee for Un-Australan Activities, which would prohibit constitutional monarchists as “UnAustralian”.
Thomas,
Thank you for your measured critique. Spirit of Australia is indeed a difficult concept to define. Perhaps you could find a more appropriate word to describe what it is that brings Australians together in times of need such as the recent Queensland floods and the devastating bushfires that occur from time to time. These catastrophes all invoke a common response from all parts of Australia, by other Australians, to do what they can to help their fellow countrymen.
Threads of Republicanism in Australia extend back to the 19th Century and extend with increasing fervor through to the latter part of the 20th Century. I question the assessment that Australia was predominantly Monarchical during the very last part of the 20th Century.
A Committee for Un-Australian Activities to prohibit Constitution Monarchists, which you recall elsewhere, seems to me to be a catchy little phrase perhaps invented by David Flint.
By the bye, wouldnt it be lovely to be able to comment like this on the ACM website. We would all have a ball with all the drivel written on there. Seems to me Monarchists are not very democratic.
I do appreciate your edifying comments.
Thomas,
I have ordered The Australian Legend and Australia since the coming of Man, both by Russel Ward, from my local library. I cannot see anything by Luke Trainor. Is he just a scholar.(just kidding)
Thanks for the tip.