skizz.biz

So having seen first hand the pomp and ceremony, where do I stand on the monarchy? Well, its made me think about it in a way that I haven’t before. There is no doubt that the people of the UK love their queen, and when they sing God Save the Queen they mean it. There are also many from other countries who love a spectacle. There were a lot of foreigners waving Union Jacks, and not all by a long shot were from commonwealth countries. But do they all love the monarchy? Its a different question and I’m not at all so sure about that.

A lot of the responses to William and Harry (’Show us your Willy’) are more like that to pop stars than to people of substance. Note that I say pop stars here, not rock stars. If you want to know what the difference is, take a look at the lineup of ‘talent’ at the royal ‘rock’ concert. All of the contemporary groups were of that plastic pre-packaged variety that the english pop scene throws up with depressing regularity - Atomic Kitten, S-Club 7 etc, etc. Interestingly, the sound system shows them up for what they are - in the crowd outside, the dense mixing of these groups used to mask their musical inadequacies masks everything, and all one can hear is a drum beat over a tuneless sussurus.

This is my impression of the next generation of the monarchy. I think Charles has proven that he is earnest though arguably his pronouncements are portrayed by the media as being without substance, while Harry and William are just kids, and have been carefully shielded from any necessity or opportunity to venture opinion.

Contrast this with the heads of state of countries with a non-executive president. Mary Robinson, now UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Nelson Mandela, even our own Deane, famously acting as the nation’s conscience on reconciliation, and South Australia’s beloved Dame Roma Mitchell. All of them earned their position and respect through a lifetime of dedication and service, not through an accident of birth. And while the queen is dedicated in the performance of her duty, and personally fulfills what we might expect of a president, do the rest of the hangers on? The great and unfathomable (beacuse still secret) expense of the monarchy is out of proportion to the service they provide. Even some of those closest to the ‘top’ are famously recalcitrant when it comes to service, Margaret for example, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Much is made of the continuity afforded by a queen, the fact that she has been around for 50 years means that she can achieve things that others cannot. But is this really true? In countries without monarchy, there are those who perform the same function. Most of these are ex politicians, who, freed from the strictures of a ‘party line’ can be refreshingly frank and statesman-like about the topics of the day. Look at the recent performances of people like president Carter in his efforts to promote free and fair elections (ironically outside the US) or in visiting Cuba, or Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam in pushing the cause of reconciliation. These roles are inaccessible to any monarch - bound as she is to avoid any hint of politics, and the country is better for it.

A head of state can say what needs to be said, without fear for the polls. Australia desperately needs one now, as the government’s crony Hollingworth obediently buries his head while Australia’s facade of respect for human rights is steadily exposed.

Guest list starts with the family and friends, and while this is acceptable and understandable for THE QUEEN, it is not for the country.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 7th, 2002 at 11:44 am and is filed under life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.