2018-10-17 15:25:34 UTC
“…Queen Elizabeth believes Australia's policy of waiting until her death before reconsidering a republic is untenable…”
“…the Queen's view is that, if Australia wants to be a republic, it should "get on with it" rather than "this lingering deathwatch…”
"…the palace view was: 'You've got to name a date because we can't have this lingering 'deathwatch…”
“…at Buckingham Palace ... there were no great celebrations [after the failure of the 1999 referendum]…”
“…while numbers of republicans were down, a ReseachNow survey revealed 67 per cent of Australians were in favour of becoming a republic...”
“…what's more, the recent nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made no difference to their republican view…”
Yay!!!!!!!!! One is vindicated. I have always postulated and opined that the Queen views this issue in a very sensible and pragmatic manner and cares less about being Queen of Australia than that Australia should become a republic if the people of Oz so decide. She appears to be miffed by the “death watch” approach taken by some people in Oz as a means of determining the timing, and who can blame her…what with people constantly trying to take her pulse to see if she still has one, and dour pasty men in black frock coats running after her, trying to “take her measurements”. Who wouldn’t be peed off? I seem to remember reporting several alleged conversations in Buckingham Palace in which Prince Charles used every European abdication event as a way of encouraging his mother to “leave”, although he dressed it up by playing up the advantages of retirement (…and what, pray tell, do retired Queens do exactly? They become Elvis impersonators at Blackpool Pavilion…). The Queen responded to his naughtiness by telling him that she planned on living to be a hundred and thirty. She also told him he wasn’t too old for a spanking. But I digress.
The Queen’s approach must be viewed in the context of the forthcoming reconstituted Kingdom of Scotland. I wish it was to be the Republic of Scotland but one thing at a time. Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom is as inevitable as Oz’s “abdication” of the monarchy, not least because of the implications of Brexit. Hysterical Australian monarchists notwithstanding (there are no hysterical monarchists in Scotland) both changes will happen, maybe in the Queen’s lifetime and she will release the yoke of the Oz throne (the one in the Australian Senate) but also become Queen of Scotland. Thus will she lose one kingdom/commonwealth but regain another. In the very unlikely event that she didn’t accept the Scottish crown (which is very elegant and unfussy), one of the Spanish Albas would be in with a chance, or, for those Oz people needing a translation – “in like Flynn”. It goes without saying that whoever gets the Scottish crown must be a Stuart descendant. The Queen descends from King James I/VI but the Albas claim direct descent from King James II, albeit through a “born on the wrong side of the blanket” liaison, plus which the Albas are very rich so they could create a very interesting court.
I still have Oz nationality, amongst others, so I get to have a say in who should be president. My choice is Lowitja O’Donoghue, but if Australia is still intent on being a monarchy, she would also make an excellent choice as the new monarch. Her first act, in either incarnation, must be to throw Pauline Hanson into the old Darlinghurst jail (perhaps the closest Australia has to the Tower of London), in perpetuity. By then, Spanky Drumpf will be ensconced in a US federal prison and they can while away the hours corresponding with each other. They could hold competitions, just between the two of them, to determine who is the more ignorant. A little off topic but I couldn’t resist.
As an afterthought….am I alone in thinking that the current visit is a way of testing the waters with a view to Prince Harry becoming GG at some point, or is the precedent of an Australian being GG so firmly implanted that it will not change?