Back in 1999, I voted “Yes” in the Australian Republican referendum. In hindsight, I’m glad I was wrong and so many more of my fellow citizens were wiser than I was, back then. In the years since, I’ve come to realise the peculiar wisdom of Australia’s (and Canada’s, and New Zealand’s) constitutional monarchy. Where, as Mark Steyn said, ultimate power is vested in someone not only without real power, but physically absent most of the time.
It’s one of the least worst systems you can live under and one of its advantages is that it diminishes the importance of politicians, which I think actually is very helpful in today’s society.
Mark Steyn
Meanwhile, there’s few better arguments against a republic than republicans themselves.
What a miserable lot of sneering, foot-stamping, small-minded, self-important children they are. Whilst I mightn’t think much of Charles Windsor the man (although I may be wrong: Russell Crowe has written of his encounters with Charles, “the man who would be King was kind. He was also funny. Deeply intelligent and good company… I’ll never forget the warmth in our last hand shake. Good bloke.”), I can respect the office of King Charles III. (Not “Charles 111”, as the illiterates at NZ’s national broadcaster would have it.)
But respect and submitting themselves to a higher authority is not what the modern left do. These preening children imagine themselves as the centre of the universe, chanting “I Am Special” and screeching in outrage at the very notion of swearing an oath of loyalty.
Worse, at the same time that made-up taradiddle from the 1970s, dressed up in a bit of ochre and gum leaves, subsumes everything from football games to school assemblies, even plane flights, every ritual and sacred institution of the West is sneered at and derided.
On Saturday, Australians will be called upon to rise and swear loyalty and allegiance to King Charles III, inheriting an ancient monarchy on the other side of the world who also happens to be our head of state, with a “homage” that the Archbishop of Canterbury believes will be a “joyful moment” to be shared by “persons of goodwill”.
Indeed. Just as half the world’s population tuned in for the solemn pomp of the late Queen’s funeral, billions will pause in their daily lives to be moved by the majesty of the King’s coronation. For just a few hours, they will be reminded that there are things which endure, which are greater than ourselves. Greater even than those taking part.
But not the left. Such solemnity and dignity is anathema to their outsized egos and shrivelled souls.
The suggestion that those of us in what will be described as merely “the other realms” are meant to proclaim our “homage” with “heart and voice” is utterly ridiculous in this age. Yet Welby believes this represents a modernisation of the ceremony because the King’s subjects around the world will be able to watch and respond as one in real time.
However, the idea that Charles will have a secret engagement with God during the ceremony to signify he has been chosen by the almighty is even more ludicrous.
As ludicrous as waving burning gum leaves around to drive away evil spirits? Or “welcoming” supposed “strangers” to their own homeland, in order to placate the ancestral spirits of just 3% of Australia’s population?
Whitefella magic, bad. Blackfella magic, good.
We are not allowed to watch this holiest of moments because it will take place behind a special screen, perpetuating the idea of a sacred and spiritual event, as Charles faces the high altar.
Charles will be anointed with a holy oil that has been blessed in Jerusalem and poured from the ampulla into a spoon that dates back to the 12th century. Welby performs the anointing by marking the symbol of the cross on Charles’s head, breast and hands. It is based on Old Testament tradition when, apparently, Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon the king.
Yet, after spending whole paragraphs sneering at it, Troy Bramston hypocritically claims,
one can respect tradition, conventions and institutions, and even personally admire Charles and Elizabeth II.
Your own words undermine your hypocritical snake oil, Sonny.
The liturgy for the coronation has five elements: The recognition, the oath, the anointing, the investiture and crowning, and the enthronement and homage […]
Charles […] will still require Prince William, heir to the throne, to kneel before him and pledge his loyalty. This act of “fealty” is known as The Homage of Royal Blood. Really.
There are many other bizarre elements that underscore the monarch’s wealth and authority. Charles and Camilla will journey from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey in the Jubilee State Coach with 200 military personnel. Dressed in the Robe of State, Charles will walk through the Abbey, escorted by bishops.
Charles will be preceded by the carrying of two maces, the St Edward’s Staff and four swords – the Sword of State, the Sword of Temporal Justice, the Sword of Spiritual Justice and the Sword of Mercy – along with other ancient regalia. For the anointing, Charles will sit on the Coronation Chair which encloses the Stone of Destiny, which has been used for more than 700 years.
The investing will see Charles presented with gold, leather and velvet spurs; the jewelled sword; gold-decorated armills; the Robe and Stole Royal; the Gold and Jewelled Orb; the Ring and Glove; and the Sceptre with Cross and Sceptre with Dove. The St Edward’s Crown is then lowered onto Charles’s head. “God Save the King!” He then sits on his throne and surveys his kingdom as the homage is made.
So, do you respect tradition, conventions and institutions, or not? You cannot claim to do so, then sneer:
All of this is a bit much. It harks back to a bygone age.
The Australian
Yes. That’s the point, you witless buffoon.
Still, we can only hope Republicans keep up their carping, whining and egotistical blithering. Few things will do more to ensure the continuance of the constitutional monarchy that has served us so well.