No G'Day For King Charles & Princess Consort Camilla
Written by Joanne Leyland
Monday, 29 January 2007
Page 3 of 3
Now, just over seven years later, that theory would appear to be true.
Although the latest in a long line
of media-led polls suggests the republican issue is very much on the
backburner, it once again suggests there are worrying times ahead for
the House of Windsor, with many yet to be convinced by the heir to the
throne and his second wife, Camilla.
The couple are yet to undertake an official tour of Australia, a not
wholly surprising state of affairs considering the way in which many in
Australia first truly heard from the then Mrs Parker Bowles.
In January 1993, Australia's New Idea magazine
broke ranks by publishing the full transcript of the sensational
'Camillagate' tape in which the married Prince of Wales and his equally
married mistress spoke in sexually explicit terms to each other during
what should have been a wholly 'private' telephone conversation.
Could it be that Australians have long memories?
Questioned last week as to their thoughts about Australia and the monarchy if Charles becomes King and Camilla "Princess Consort" (she will, in all likelihood, be crowned Queen Consort) there was a dramatic jump in those who suddenly favoured a republic.
With such a proposition put before them, 51% of those polled said they
would instead prefer to elect a President. Just 29% of people were in
favour of a monarchy headed by Charles and Camilla.
Nevertheless,
this is just one poll — with many more to come in the months and years
ahead. Time enough, Palace aides would say, to sway public opinion in
favour of the heir to the throne and his "darling wife".
Comment: Lisa, there is no need for your nasty attitude. Why are you constantly so rude to others who just have a different opinion to yours? I do not "constantly point out that the world is waiting with baited breath for him to reign" nor have I said "that your/my views reflect the rest of Australians". I have only pointed out the misconceptions that you yourself have just displayed in your very next sentence - "It is what it is and they do not want him and his latest wife".
Prince Charles and his wife are indeed liked and respected by many Australians and others in the Commonwealth, though not by everyone which is entirely natural. We all have different opinions based on our environment, education, knowledge of world events and even our own personal experiences.
When we (Australians) do become a republic it won't have anything to do with a ceremonial figure on the throne (as it is now), it will be for far more serious reasons then a personality contest. If a person does vote purely on a dislike for Charles and Camilla, then they are making a serious mistake because the consequences of such a big change in government etc will be huge.
Name: Henri M.
Comment: It is too easy and too simplistic to hang an eventual independence of Australia, Canada or other countries to the present Prince of Wales.
I would refer to the fact that already under the 'glorious' Reign of Queen Elizabeth numerous dominions and 'oversea territories' have gained independence and do elect their own head of state.
The core underlying fact in both Australia and Canada (and in Scotland, and in Wales) is the growing self-consciousness, the re-discovering of what is 'Canadian' or 'Scottish', the focussing on their own inner strength and what binds the Aussies or the Welsh rather than a loose and formal personal alliance with someone in London.
That such an independence could take place 'after Elizabeth II' is logical because the accession to the throne of a new monarch is always a turning point. It is like the changing of succession laws, 'out of courtesy' such changes usually do not have retroactive workings, do not affect the present situation but come into full force with the accession of a new Sovereign.
It is easy to drag Camilla into it. But it is highly doubtful if a Kate Middleton would have toned down Australia's desire for having their own elected president.
Name: Carolyn
Comment: It will take another nationwide vote for the decision to be made re a republic here. Until then speculation is just that. Newspaper polls are notoriously inaccurate. Her Majesty has graciously stated that it is up to the Australian people to decide if they want to retain the Monarchy. Personally I would rather not give more power to the politicians, they have quite enough and we are taxed to the hilt. So if Her Majesty lives another 20yrs, we will just have to wait and see. Republicans, don't hold your breath
Name: Lisa
Comment: Judith, since you constantly point out that the world is waiting with baited breath for him to reign, I find this article very enlightening and quite frankly it made my day when I read it. I thought of you immediately!
Now, you may like him and be looking forward to his ascension and that is your perogative, but that doesn't mean that your views reflect the rest of Australians. It is what it is and they do not want him and his latest wife.
And the other Judy, regarding your comment that it isn't against them personally, not surprisingly I will beg to differ. If they want their own head of state, why don't they have it now? I don't see them getting rid of the Queen and they have had plenty of opportunities.
Name: Judith
Comment: Well said Antonia, but some folks wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good Charles/Camilla bashing now, would they?!
Respectfully, I disagree with the comments that "crowds were down". The Prince visited some smaller places apart from the cities, where we made a decent effort and everyone showed up. Just because we aren't from the "big smoke" shouldn't mean that we are devalued, thanks very much.
Name: M-M
Comment: Yes Alberto , I too would query the 'positive media coverage ' and 'respectable crowds' of the POW's 2005 tour of Australia .
In many places the 'crowds' were down to a mere handful - there was in fact little interest in him at all - but large crowds and much interest in the Danish Royal couple who were here at the same time .
Charles would never win a popularity contest and neither would Camilla , so there will not be a huge turn-around of feeling on a personal level IMO And that is what it would take , a feeling of personal relationship such as there is with the Queen , as there was with Diana , in order to over ride the drift to Republicanism .
Name: Kate
Comment: I wonder if it has dawned on the POW what a huge and horrible can of worms he opened by marrying his mistress? I just hope they do NOT visit Canada... We have the Quebec situation, who would be happy to chuck the monarchy and many westerners as well, although Victoria BC is the last sizable British bastion, IMO. Perhaps Nova Scotia as well....I am sure the advisers to the Queen no enough to detour them elsewhere!
Name: Lisa
Comment: How can this be(insert fake horror here)?? We have been told repeatedly in this comment section by a poster from Australia that ALL of his subjects are practically frothing at the mouth for him to reign over them! They just can't WAIT for King Charles and Queen whatshername! Why, this poll must be fake, it must be a set-up, it MUST be wrong! How much time do they NEED for gosh sakes??? And BTW, he also called Diana his "darling wife" while on tour of Australia all those years ago. If I were CPB, I would make him call me something else.
Name: Alberto
Comment: He drew positive media coverage and respectable crowds in his 2005 visit???...I only remember the bare boobs protesters. It was a low-profile tour. In 2005, The Queen has intervened to prevent an effort by Prince Charles to open the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. A "source close to the Australian Government" told The Sunday Times that Charles had asked the Government through his private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, whether he could open the Games, with his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, by his side. And IT has everything to do with Charles and Camilla personally. Prince Charles and Camilla toured the United States in 2005, because the Canadian government discouraged the newlyweds from making their first North American stopover there. WHY? PC & his Duchess will spark REPUBLICANS.
Name: Susan
Comment: Wow! I thought something would be mentioned - but NAY! - No news about Chuck and Camy! At all! Can you imagigne the papers if the lovely 'ex' and Chuck were here??!! hahahahah love it!!!! there is absolutely no news, no nothing.
Name: Trudie
Comment: One poll and should be enough for the palace take notice about the POW and his darling wife.
Name: shelley
Comment: Aaaah, Camillagate, who could forget it? I never shall, nor will most people who don't yet have dementia.
Name: jj
Comment: Not at all suprising that the Australians want their own Head of State
I doubt it has anything to do with Charles and Camilla personally.
Name: Antonia
Comment: Do you realise that "The Australian" and "The Weekend Australian" are republican newspapers? They are owned by a prominent republican in Rupert Murdoch. These papers also run articles criticising the extremely popular Australian born Danish Crown Princess Mary. These are not unbiased papers, they do have an agenda. Media polls can be skewed to show whatever you want them too. Particularly if they're polls run by the paper which has a republican bent. What 'worrying times for the House of Windsor"? Prince Charles has publicly stated that if Australians want them to remain they will, it's up to Australians to decide. The British royals and their advisors had actually thought that the Republicans would win the 1999 referendum, and tentative plans had been put for a 'farewell tour' by the royals. It was a surprise to all that the vote for the status quo won. The British royals deliberately stayed out of Australia in the late 1990's so the Head of State issue could be debated. Charles visited in 1993 and then didn't come back until just before his wedding in 2005, since it was 12 years between his last visits, the fact that he and Camilla have been married less than 2 years and have not made a visit is hardly proof that they're not welcome! He drew positive media coverage and respectable crowds in his 2005 visit, which coincided with CP Mary's first official visit. But then he wasn't pretty, young, Australian born and a princess. There was nothing for the women's magazines to fawn over. The most important point about the whole republican debate, Australians are not idiots, they don't want to change the system of government based on a personality contest. 'They don't like him, 'they have long memories' etc Wanting Australia to become a republic is because republican Australians think it's ridiculous that the Australian Head of State is a foreign monarch. They believe that the Head of State should be Australian and live in Australia. Australians don't care about their leaders personal lives, they're not moralistic. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke admitted being an alcoholic who cheated repeatedly on his wife and yet he won successive elections.
Name: Alberto
Comment: In a 1999 referendum, the voters of Australia narrowly rejected a proposal to abolish their monarchy in favour of a specific republic model. The proposal was rejected in all states, with only the Australian Capital Territory passing the proposal, despite surveys indicating that a majority of Australians support Australia becoming a republic; it appears that Australian voters rejected the specific model proposed, rather than the idea of becoming a republic. And there is a prospect of an independent Scottish republic, within the EU. The Queen's position as Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary, and when and if the Prince of Wales becomes King, it will be for Commonwealth Heads of Government to decide whether he assumes the role of Head of the Commonwealth. The unconventional marriage of the present Prince of Wales is a ticking time-bomb under the monarchy. With PC low popularity ratings, there will be another battle to be recognized as Head of State (...Canada...Australia...New Zealand...). It will break loose.
Name: M-M
Comment: There are several factors that will make Australia choose to be a Republic , and the delay in doing this is due to first of all the Queen herself.
There is the feeling of 'after her' we'll decide . The second delaying factor is our PM who is a fervent Monarchist , so it will also be 'after him' .
There is an understandable desire here to have an official Head of State who actually lives in the country , not on the other side of the globe , and represents us (and not the UK ) when overseas. Of course we have a GG (Governor General ) but he merely represents HM .
There is also the UK's membership of the European Common Market these days - a complete change of focus for their trade and other interests .
And that brings us to Charles and Camilla . When Britain itself is divided over Camilla being Queen , and Charles' performance as POW - how much more are the Commonwealth countries inclined to think that if there ever is a good time for change , it would be then ? Of course no one has a crystal ball .
Now, just over seven years later, that theory would appear to be true.
Could it be that Australians have long memories?
And that is what it would take , a feeling of personal relationship such as there is with the Queen , as there was with Diana , in order to over ride the drift to Republicanism .
