The forthcoming visit of the next in line to the Australian throne reminds us of the farcical nature of our current constitutional arrangements. Senior correspondent Barry Everingham comments.
THE FORTHCOMING visit to Australia of our next hereditary monarch and his wife will rekindle in the minds of royalists, and those interested in the comings and goings of the world’s most extraordinary family, the momentous events of 1937 that catapulted Queen Elizabeth to the throne of Australia.
Charles and Camilla were saved the odium heaped upon Charles’ great uncle King Edward VIII and his then lover, the twice divorced lady from Baltimore, Mrs Wallis Simpson.
Indeed, the leaders of the then collection of countries known as the British Empire were to a nation against the King marrying his paramour and the British government, in a display of raw bastardry, made a union impossible. After fleeing England, the couple married as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and swapped the royal throne for that of international café society.
But not before the Duke was cut off from his family and his wife deprived of the right by an Act of Parliament to be addressed as Your Royal Highness (the Depriving Act of 1937) which outraged the then editor of Burke’s Peerage, the British bible of social rank, who called it
‘…the most flagrant act in the whole history of our dynasty’.
Charles and Camilla were saved such ignominy, even though both – unlike Edward and Wallis – admitted adultery while married to their former spouses.
And it is now known the Commonwealth countries of which Charles will become king were not consulted, nor their opinions sought, on the suitability of the couple to marry. Indeed taped late night telephone conversations between the couple were released by the Murdoch press, and those calling a 1300 number were fascinated by Charles’ admission to Camilla that all he really wanted was
“…to be a tampon inside her”.
Such a romantic notion would not have crossed great Uncle David’s mind, as it has now been alleged that Mrs Simpson probably had all the confused plumbing of an hermaphrodite.
Along with the knowledge that the British abhor adultery, but go along with fornication, serial adulterers Charles and Camilla were both permitted to marry, with Camilla allowed the full status of Your Royal Highness ― but she was denied the official title of Princess of Wales, which she legally is, and was saddled with one of her second husband’s secondary titles, the Duchess of Cornwall, which she will retain until Charles becomes king, when she will be known as Queen Camilla.
The monarchists in general, and Cory Bernardi’s great and good friends Professor David Flint and Alan Jones’s in particular, go along with the canard that our Queen to be will be called something stupid like “Princess Consort”.
All this is fascinating stuff but should not be relevant to contemporary Australia.
This couple have no Australian roots – indeed the forthcoming visit will be Camilla’s first − and until our Constitution is dragged screaming into reality, it is people like Queen Elizabeth and her son and daughter-in-law who are preventing every Australian from aspiring to, or holding, our nation’s top job.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License










5 Comments
so how do we start a new republican movement? it’s been 13 or so years.
william and kate may have pumped drawn interest back into some australians, but they’re just as irrelevant to us as any other british royal if you think about it.
if we wait til their shine wears off, they’ll have had kids, which will just be a new excuse to cling to this discriminatory model. a never ending cycle of anti-democracy.
Ho hum, yet another Royal visit. Can’t wait to see Sir Anthony Abbott and Dame Sophie Mirabella (that’s what they really want) in supplicant action around the Royals. About time the nation grew up and became a Republic, but with the Magazines extolling the virtues (and apparel) of the Royals for the masses, what hope do we have? The Royals are the soma of our times.
Soma -A fictional drug in Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World in which the population voluntarily consume Soma to dispel any anxieties or negative emotion “One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments”
There are plenty of strategic, trade, political and geographic reasons why Australia should be (more) independent — but, let’s face it, “Will ‘n Kate” have such enormous appeal with the Aust public and media (near saturation coverage level), that the odds of Australia cutting ties with the monarchy in the medium term future are limited.
I know what Barry means when he writes that: “This couple have no Australian roots”, BUT Prince Charles has been in Australia so many times (going back to when he was a schoolboy at an Australian school), that he is almost an accepted part of the scenery. I suspect he is more popular with the Australian public than our media realises.
If William and Kate produce a “royal baby”, the likes of the Womens Weekly” will milk the story for everything they can — giving us plenty MORE (!!) time to think about what we DO want for a future Australia, rather than what we know we don’t want — a mediaeval oligarchy on the other side of the world dictating our foreign policy, our bank interest rates, our mortgage rates, and appointing their bent proteges as judges to ponce about in their robes, as if they think they are God, who protect criminals and yet evict honest hardworking Australian families, kids included, from their homes
Charles Windsor and Peter Slipper have something in common – public access to their private communications followed by uproar from the sanctimonious who haven’t been thus exposed.
Get over it – a lot of people say things in private which the rest of us were never intended to see/hear/read and which we don’t want to know about. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Charles Battenberg** to give him his correct name is very unpopular in Britain, whether he is, or will remain popular in Australia remains to be seen.At the moment there is a furor e over a decision by the Attorney General to veto publication of Prince Charles’s twenty seven letters he sent to Ministers in the last government.Yet a committee of three judges (I believe) agreed that they should be seen by the taxpaying public. The Guardian newspaper applied under the clearly selective Freedom of Information act to see them and publish them in the public domain. It is alleged that PC was campaigning on behalf of his own interests and also endeavoring to influence future legislation. The revelation about his embarrassing tampon episode was an example where a cover-up was not allowed. Millions of Brits. do not want yet another one for this pampered and hereditary privileged mediocrity!! A cover up which I would assume the majority of Australians do not want to happen.
** this politically expedient change of name in 1917 is mentioned on my website:www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk