One of the most persistent claims made by republicans has been that some how the Queen of Australia is not 'one of us'. However, not only is this assertion wholly unrelated to the truth, many of the republican's own arguments undermine their claims.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was crowned Queen 2nd June, 1953. At her Coronation she swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other Realms and territories 'according to their respective laws and customs.' Five years earlier, on the occasion of her 21st birthday, during an official visit to South Africa with her parents, the Queen pledged a lifetime of devotion to the service of her people. It has been a promise well kept.
Under law Her Majesty is 'one of us' by virtue of the fact she is the Queen of Australia - the title itself was granted to the Queen in 1953 by the Commonwealth Parliament with the passing of the Royal Style and Titles Act, 1953. Later, in 1973, with the Queens consent the new Royal Style and Titles Act, 1973 removed from the Queen's Australian style and title the references to Britain and the Queen as 'Defender of the Faith' further 'Australianising' her title. Today Her Majesty's Australian style and title is elegantly simple:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia
and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Despite the republicans selective claims to the contrary Her Majesty is of course very much a part of Australia. The Queen is the sovereign Head of the Order of Australia. Her portrait hangs in clubs, scout halls, board rooms, council chambers, Parliaments, Town Halls, Government Houses, school rooms, government offices, police stations and courts all across the nation. The Queen's portrait is also on the five dollar note and on all Australian coinage (of course released by the Royal Australian Mint). A statue of Her Majesty, which the Queen herself unveiled in 1988, stands above the entrance of Parliament House in Canberra.
The Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of numerous units of the Australian Defence Forces as well as the patron of many institutions, societies and organisations from many and varied walks of Australian life. Every politician, military officer, judge and Scout have sworn allegiance to the her and many organisations, such as Lions and Rotary, still begin each meeting with a toast to the Queen. There is even a whole town in South Australia named in her honour.
Since her popular first tour of Australia in 1954, the Queen has been a central participant in many of our great national occasions. The Queen in her 1988 visit to help us celebrate our Bicentenary, travelled extensively all across the nation. To commemorate the occasion, Australia built and presented to the Queen the Australian State Carriage. One of the many highlights of the tour was the Queen's opening of new Parliament House on 9 May in Canberra. In her speech the Queen referred to the long royal precedent:
'It was on 9 May 1901 that the members and senators elected by the citizens of the new Commonwealth of Australia gathered in Melbourne for the opening of the first session of the first national Parliament by my grandfather. It was also on this same day in 1927 that the provisional Parliament House was opened in the new capital of Canberra by my father.'
From the opening of the Sydney Opera House in 1973, to the opening of the High Court building in 1982, to the smaller, but some would argue equally moving events such as the planting of two golden poplars along side the Hobart Cenotaph to honour Australia's war time sacrifice, the Queen has been an honoured participant. Since the Queen's first visit in 1954 she has visited a total of eleven other occasions; in 1963, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988, and 1992. No doubt Her Majesty will play an important role in helping us celebrate the centenary of federation in 2001.
The Queen herself, personally, is genuinely respected and admired by millions of average Australians and even by many who profess republican sentiments! On the occasion of the Her Majesty's 1977 visit to Australia former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said that 'the Queen has performed her constitutional duties with grace and dedication, secure in the loyalty and affection of her subjects' continuing that nothing could ever '... spoil the pleasure that ordinary Australians take in welcoming their Head of State'.
For republicans to now say to Australians that their Queen - the Queen of Australia - is a 'foreigner' or not 'one of us' is not only ridiculously wrong, it beggars belief.
The inference here is obvious; you cannot be a good Australian and live overseas. This is totally ridiculous of course. When, after a lengthy stay in America, expatriate art critic Howard Hughes visited Australia announcing his support for an Australian Republic, Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull, reacted angrily to the media's questioning of Hughes ability to be involved in the debate as a non resident;
'...what sort of mean-minded chauvinism is that? ... I mean, surely as an intellectual he's entitled to be judged on the merit or demerit of his ideas not where he lives.'
(AM, 3/12/'96).
Well, quite.
Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary republicans still claim that the Queen really has little to do with her Australian Realm. Even if this was true it would hardly be Her Majesty's fault - she only comes when invited by Her Australian Government - and in the last fifty years or so that has been often. Perhaps the Queen isn't toasted at every civic banquet, or the Royal Cipher isn't on every post box - but so what? Would a President be toasted at every Town Hall reception? Would a President's initials be on every post box? You would hope not as this would imply a rather more permanent President reminiscent of some third world Banana Republic.
The republicans unimaginative attacks on the Queen as a 'foreigner' is representative of a sinister undercurrent of exclusion that weaves it's way through republican rhetoric. In the face of such rhetoric the question 'who are republicans to decide who is Australian enough?' presents itself quite readily. Of course republicans don't have a monopoly on who or what is a 'true Australian'. Still, to republicans, because the Queen resides 'off shore' Her Majesty is a mere foreigner (where then does that leave Tasmania?).
The problem for republicans is with up to an estimated five million good and loyal Australians either having duel or even multiple citizenship their attacks on the Queen for not being sufficiently committed to Australia could equally apply to those migrants. It does seem decidedly odd that republicans choose to single out Her Majesty for the charge of 'not being Australian enough' when there are so many ordinary citizens with strong links to other countries. A more ungenerous soul may be inclined to describe their stance as being somewhat on the hypocritical side, even more so when you realise that many republicans support duel citizens being able to sit in parliament or even becoming a President in the glorious new republic.
If republicans welcome duel citizens as good and proud Australians - as they should - why then is not Her Majesty extended the same welcome? At the end of the day the Queen is 'one of us' and the only thing - apart from republicanism itself - that is truly foreign to Australia is the republicans lack of generosity.
|
The Australian State portrait of Her Majesty by Sir William Dargie - Parliament House, Canberra.
Click to see full picture
|
