AUSTRALIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
An opinion column from the national convenor
|
|
|
|
"Getting a knighthood or being appointed a dame,” compared with being
made a companion in the Order of Australia, “ is unmistakable,” declares
D.D. McNicoll in The Australian on Australia Day (“Revive Sirs or I'll
have your guts for garters.”)
He says an AC is “pretty hot stuff officially” ranking higher than a
knight of the Order of the Bath, a knight of the Order of St Michael and
St George, a knight of the Royal Victorian Order, a knight of the Order
of the British Empire and a knight bachelor.
“But,” he says “ I'll bet most of the recipients would rather have
that instantly recognisable "Sir" tacked on to the front of their
names.” That is probably true of most, except the late Patrick White. He
angrily gave his AC back when Malcolm Fraser added knights and dames to
the Order of Australia.
|
|
What Mr. McNicoll says is not normally admitted in or near the Palais
Murdoch in Holt Street Sydney. After all, did not the proprietor himself
decline the customary peerage for British media moguls?
From a writer who until now seemed to me a touch more republican than
his father, the late and great David McNicoll, this is an interesting
comment.
(Incidentally, I used to subscribe to The Bulletin, but only to read
David McNicoll père. I don’t think I was alone. I don’t think he was a
republican –rather he was reluctantly resigned to what he saw as
something inevitable. But he did not at all like what he termed the
pressure-pack approach to rush us into a republic.)
The Australian in the nineties was so frenetically and urgently
republican that it sometimes tottered into almost irrational behaviour.
Dr Nancy Stone has cogently demonstrated[i], beyond any reasonable doubt
that The Australian, outside of its quite legitimate editorial position,
so strongly favoured the Yes case in 1999 that its reputation was
compromised. But in this, it was little different from most of the
nation’s “serious” media.[ii]
|
|
It is fair to say that on this issue The Australian has since largely
overcome this aberration.
For example, a recent editorial (“Reality check time,” 23 January,
2008) challenges those in the chattering classes who want to make
gubernatorial appointments a show-case for affirmative action and who
repeat the tired mantra that this is the last Governor-General.
(A notable exception is the Hon. Bob Carr. He has called for the
president to be styled the governor-general. As Justice Lloyd Waddy said
at the 1998 Constitutional Convention, “This is a Governor-General who
is not a Governor-General, and we could not explain it when he was a
Governor-General. But now he is not a Governor-General; he is really a
president but we do not call him that because we do not dare to.”)
Unfortunately, the editorial is somewhat misleading on one crucial
point.
It says that on the eve of the election Mr Rudd told Paul Kelly and
Dennis Shanahan that a referendum on the republic was not a priority.
He said much more than that.
What he said was dynamite for republicans. Mr Rudd actually said that
the republican referendum and others discussed would not occur in this
term, “if at all.”
If at all.
|
|
We tried to tell the letters editor this, to no avail.
Surely, surely, it is not considered some sort of lèse majesté down
at The Australian to point out that an editorial is factually
misleading, even if unintentionally so?
We didn’t say, after all, that the editor doesn’t read his own paper.
Of course the editor still promulgates, which is his right, the bien
pensant view that a referendum should happen sometime and a republic is
inevitable.
The editor warns that given the length of the process, a change to a
republic could be more than five years away.
Five years?
The republican movement still can’t or won’t say what sort of changes
they would make to the Constitution and the Flag.
|
|
But let us return to titles and The Australian.
In its ultra republican years the newspaper even adopted a style
guide which outlawed titles, so you had an opinion piece from, say,
Harry Gibbs, “ a former Chief Justice “ of Australia. To the world he
had long been “ Sir Harry Gibbs.”
The same is true of the great Sir John Monash ( pictured), who was
knighted on the battlefield by King George V.
He was thereafter forever Sir John Monash, and it was demeaning to
see him in The Australian as " John Monash." As if some journalist
wanted to take his title away.
The policy became difficult with ecclesiastics. Why on earth would
you strip, say, His Eminence, Sir James Cardinal Freeman of those names
which announced who precisely he was?
That said, there has long been a prolific Canberra based letter
writer to who seems to be able to reserve his “ Rev. Dr” form of address
when he writes to the serious media.
|
|
As Mr McNicoll says, everybody knows what a knight is. And so it goes
for Dames.
As a Canadian observed , nobody outside Australia noticed or cared
when Nicole Kidman became an AC. Had she been made a Dame, the world
would have noticed.
I was surprised on Australia Day, in the main street of Fremantle, to
see a boy of about 12 years on one knee before a lady surrounded by a
vibrantly happy group.
Their accents were distinctly West Indian.
The lady was holding a toy sword. She then dubbed him, with great
dignity , on both shoulders, to the delight of his family and the great
amusement and no doubt approval of passersby.
Everybody, from the little boy to the oldest adult, immediately
recognized that great and timeless act, entry into an order of chivalry.
That is part of being an Australian, part of our cultural memory. It
is part and parcel of the collective memory of the people of our ancient
Commonwealth, something which the Labour Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, Gordon Brown has just emphasised.
David McNicoll clearly knows this.
He says that while “most republican types probably cheered “ when new
Knights and Dames of Australia were “ I reckon it was a retrograde
step.”
He says that when the last Knights of Australia leave this world,
“Australia will be a poorer place, and not just because of their
passing.”
And so say all of us. .
|
|
[i] Dr Nancy Stone, “The Referendum Debate: A Note on Press Coverage.”
The Samuel Griffith Society, Upholding the Australian Constitution,
Volume 12, Chapter 9 ( 2000) [ii] The Age was even more biased. Both
newspapers were also miserable in letting in opinion pieces supporting
the No case – they published almost twice as many favouring the Yes
case. Needless to say, most editorials in both papers favoured the Yes
case, and a few were neutral. None of course favoured the constitutional
monarchists. It must be conceded that The Australian was fair as regards
letters, marginally favouring the official republicans, 8:7, while The
Age actually favoured No letter writers, 6:5. But as Dr Stone points
out, in every week of the campaign, the newspapers overwhelming
supported the Yes case. Indeed it was so overwhelming that both
compromised their status as serious newspapers.
To comment, or to link to sources
|
|
Until next time,
David Flint
acmhq@norepublic.com.au
To unsubscribe/change profile:
click here.
To subscribe:
click here.
Australians For Constitutional Monarchy
International House
Sixth Floor, 104 , Bathurst Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
|
|