Before November slips away, I wanted to acknowledge a significant anniversary: it is twenty years since Australian republicans lost their referendum on the monarchy. Alone among the planet's pundits, I happened to be dining at Buckingham Palace on the eve of the big vote.
Then as now, there are a lot of lazy republicans out there - people for whom it is a reflex, the obvious progressive thing; it's "rational" and, what's more, inevitable, so let's get on with it. The great Australian polymath Clive James was a subtler chap. Clive died a few days ago, which has left me more saddened than I expected, and I wish I could lay my cyber-hands on a terrific piece he wrote just before the Oz referendum. Because he was a man of the left in his newspaper (The Observer, The Guardian) and broadcast (BBC) outlets, his audience was often surprised to discover a robust opposition to many of their assumptions - on climate change, for example, but also on the monarchy:
Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy and not become a republic, author and well known television presenter Clive James told a probably somewhat surprised audience at the Melbourne Writers' Festival last night. In its issue of 25 August, 2007, the Melbourne newspaper The Age said that Mr. James was responding to a question from the audience after delivering the festival's keynote speech at the Melbourne Town Hall. He declared himself a "cultural conservative" who valued and believed in the current constitutional system. "You ask when are you going to be free of the British monarchy. You are free under the British monarchy. What you have to guarantee is that you are free under the next system. I think it's a very advantageous political system to Australia, to have a connection with the old British monarchy...
"I know I must be seen as impossibly conservative, but you can be quite on the left, which I am, and still be culturally conservative." Referring to the republic referendum in 1999, he recently said that "there is a danger in Australia constantly of the consensus of the commentariat separating too far from the opinion of the people, to the point where the commentariat becomes contemptuous of the people."
That's certainly become rather more obvious - in Oz, Britain, North America, Europe - since he said it a decade or so back. Incidentally, unlike many of Her Majesty's fairweather friends, who accept knighthoods from the Queen and then argue that the republic is an idea "whose time has come", I believe Clive James turned down such an honor.
Anyway, here I am twenty years ago, dining at Buckingham Palace on the eve of the Australian republican referendum:
As readers of Monday's Comment page may have noted, I passed a jolly evening last week at the Elks Lodge in Littleton, New Hampshire, in the company of George W Bush. Immediately afterwards, I flew to London for dinner at Buckingham Palace.
"Wow! That's quite a week," said my assistant. "One minute, you're with America's next head of state. The next, you're with Britain's and Canada's head of state."
"Or look at it another way," I said. "One minute, I'm at the Elks Lodge in Littleton. The next, I'm at Buckingham Palace."
It would be invidious for me to disclose the reasons for the Palace's call, if only because the Financial Post's Linda McQuaig has already complained that I sound more like something from Monarchy than a Canadian newspaper column. Hey, sorry about that, Linda. But, as the only national columnist who isn't a member of the same Toronto health club as Adrienne Clarkson, I have to find my namedrops where I can. So, at the risk of breaching the confidence of a private occasion, here's an exchange that deserves to make it into the public prints:
One of my fellow guests, remarking on the lack of agricultural workers in Britain, said that he now brought in young Australians and South Africans, who were able to make £90 to £100 a day (about $60,000 a year) picking onions.
"Crying all the way to the bank?" said the Duke of Edinburgh.
The next day, Australians went to the polls for their referendum on whether to dump the monarchy. The Queen won. Australia, we'd been told, wanted an elected head of state, and now it's got one. Yet, rather than respect the people's verdict, the proponents of a republic flew into a rage. Aussies are wont to refer to the English as "whinging Poms," but you've never seen anyone whinge like the sore losers on the republican side when the electorate declined to agree with them.
The overwhelmingly republican press took defeat particularly hard: It seems Australians do resent a remote autocratic foreigner from thousands of miles away running the place and lording it over them. Unfortunately, it turned out to be Rupert Murdoch rather than Elizabeth Windsor. The media mogul overplayed his hand by declaring that he'd lived under three different systems (Aussie, UK, American) and republics were best. John Howard, the prime minister, reminded Mr Murdoch that he was a US citizen and, in an unguarded moment, apparently suggested that he "f**k off." Even after the republican side had conceded, the Murdoch press seemed reluctant to accept the actual result: "Queen Hurt By No Vote Despite Win" was the headline on The Sunday Times of London. Mr Murdoch's poodle, anxious to please, began his report as follows: "The Queen was hurt and disappointed by the strength of republican feeling in Australia... "
Come again? Her Majesty was "hurt and disappointed"? How does the Times hack know? He was down the pub with her? She'd called him at home, choked up with tears, to confide her innermost feelings? As the only journalist on the planet present at Buckingham Palace on the eve of the big vote, I think I can speak with complete authority on this matter when I say I haven't a clue as to the Royal Family's state of mind and private thoughts. I kept trying to slip Australia into the conversation, right up to the end when, as the Duke of Edinburgh was showing me the door and my carriage was about to turn back into a pumpkin, I opined that I thought the 1901 Australian constitution was rather better than the 1867 Canadian one. "Hmm," he said, and made some sharp observations about the differences between the two forms of federalism. But, as to how they feel about losing their antipodean throne, who knows?
Still, if I had to guess, "crying all the way to the bank" isn't a bad way to put it. Like Liberace, the Queen may have been "hurt" by some of the beastly things that have been said about her; but, on the big day, she came through: Her electoral validation may be a long way from the divine right of kings, but it's also useful ammunition against lazy post-monarchists in her realms. The snubbed Australian media keep harping on about the electoral divide — between young upscale educated urban republicans and old poor rube hick monarchists — but the interesting aspect of the royalist victory is how widespread it was: On Tuesday; it emerged that, as votes continued to be counted, the sole pro-republican state — Victoria — had tipped back to the Queen's side. The only two large polling centres to plump for the republican cause were the national capital Canberra (like Ottawa, a company town where the company happens to be big government) and London, England, where 60 per cent of expats are supposed to have voted to dump the Crown. If the Republic of Oz needs the votes of Earl's Court bedsits, it's in bigger trouble than it knows.
For Canadian republicans, the Australian referendum has several lessons. First, it's a rebuke to the "inevitabilist" theory of history. Secondly, it's a telling defeat for the "minimalist" republic — the idea that you simply change the governor-general's title to president, and life goes on as before. The defeated republican forces now say that next time the question should simply ask whether Australians favour a republic per se and leave it until later to work out whether it's going to be the Václav Havel model or the Saddam Hussein model. The devil is in the details — and to demand that the electorate reject an actual specific monarchy in favour of a vague, unspecified republic is as absurd as asking them to vote for a monarchy and reassuring them you'll let 'em know afterwards whether they'll be getting Elizabeth II, Emperor Bokassa or Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.
Some republicans who support a directly elected president recognised this and joined forces with monarchists to defeat the system on offer: a republic whose head of state would be decided by the politicians. The official republican movement mocked their more principled colleagues for forming an "incoherent" and "contradictory" alliance with Good Queen Bess' diehard forelock-tuggers. In fact, there's nothing incoherent and contradictory about it. This was an important victory for western society's real silent majority: those people who dissent from the notion that career politicians should carve up all the most visible offices of state for themselves. Some of this silent majority are monarchists; some believe in a directly elected president; a large proportion are just average contented folks who aren't obsessed about politics. But they have far more to bind them to each other than they do to the establishment republicans who believe that the presidency should be just one more gift in the ruling party's box of baubles. If Australian voters tell us anything, it's that a political state isn't enough. At heart, most of us are romantic enough to demand more — either the mystique of monarchy or the rawer form of democratic politics in which a man must embark on his campaign to win the presidency by pressing the flesh in the Elks Lodge. Constitutional monarchy and a US-style presidency don't have much in common — except insofar as, either way, you find yourself sitting next to me come early November — but both speak to something larger in a nation's sense of itself.
For my own part, I'd argue that the Royal Family comes into contact with a far wider range of ordinary Canadians than the Liberal cabinet does. By "wide range of ordinary Canadians," I mean, of course, me: I've been to dinner at the Palace, whereas that deadbeat at Sussex Drive has never once invited me over. His grudging defence of the Crown was typical. What's extraordinary about the Australian vote was that Her Majesty won not just against the avowed republicans but also against her supposed defenders, a far more slippery crowd. For decades, M Chrétien and his Commonwealth confrères have been republicanising their countries by stealth — here, a Royal crest off a mailbox; there, a forgotten politician to replace her on a banknote — until the visible symbols of the monarchy are removed from daily life. Her Majesty should take courage from her victory in Australia and decline to let herself be inched off the throne by the governing elite: There would be no better time for the Queen to embark on a campaign to bypass the Trojan Horses in her various viceregal branch offices and connect directly with ordinary people throughout her realms. She won down under, she could win here, and she should let Jean Chrétien know that she knows. To paraphrase Tony Blair, she is the People's Queen now.
~from The National Post, November 11th 1999
Incidentally, since Prince Andrew is in the news and since certain scurrilous rumors persist as to his paternity, I note that the soapy Netflix series "The Crown" shows Prince Philip as somewhat jealous of the Queen's friendship with "Porchy", her racing manager Lord Porchester. In November 1999, I sat opposite His Royal Highness and next to Princess Alexandra's husband, Angus Ogilvy. On the other side of Sir Angus was Porchy, who had since become the Earl of Carnarvon. (He died a couple of years later.) Porchy and Philip got along gangbusters, I would say.
Time rolls on. But in Australia the republican ructions still rankle - and I regret to say that, as reported here (about halfway down), I played a minor role in in one such spasm by Malcolm Turnbull (now himself de-throned).
By the way, many of my favourite National Post columns are collected in The Face of the Tiger and Mark Steyn from Head to Toe, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore - and in one convenient bargain package. And, to mark SteynOnline's seventeenth birthday, there's seventeen per cent off those and all other books (and CDs, and downloads, and much more) all weekend long. Oh, and if you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club, don't forget to enter the promotional code at checkout to enjoy even more savings.
If you're not in the Steyn Club, we'd love to have you. You can find more details here.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
20 Member Comments
Hey thank for that mark. Being a fifth generation whose ancestor along with many hard working people, helped build the Australia we know today ( that's fast being changed culturally) I've always had enough skin in the game to appreciate an outsiders view of my nation. It was fascinating and a nice time capsule to read the now almost unreadable SMH. Of course poor ole mal was a bit of a social climber way way back when he married into the Hughes family. Any old established Australian family who were very close to mine. My grandfather jack was very good friends with Lucy's grandfather Tom. An old catholic family. And of course pitted on the other side Tony Abbott was a few years above me at St Ignatius college and we shared the same great glorious brilliant amazing funny bright Jesuit priests as our educators. Now sadly long long gone. What times. I knew where he was coming from but boy did the press do a good job on him!! Thanks mate.
Being a thoroughly parochial American I'll admit I have very little feeling for or understanding of the practical pros and cons of monarchy. I like Queen Elizabeth. She seems like a reasonably humble person who has tried her best to be the living symbol of her nation. I don't quite understand how much of the rest of the royal family seems like little more than tabloid fodder, unless what is published about them is almost entirely false. I wish I could believe that.
The thing that attracts me to monarchy, if anything, is that it does maintain a linkage with the past. It is a living reminder of the best of the bygone days of a great empire. Since the Left is feverishly trying to erase and revise our history to advance it's nefarious purposes, I could wish for any bulwark against this sort of historical and cultural scorched earth nihilism the Left constantly pursues. Does monarchy stand firmly in the way of this? I'm not so sure, but I may just be ignorant.
"You are free under the British monarchy. What you have to guarantee is that you are free under the next system. "
I guess the next system is here and the British people are most decidedly not free. It just goes to show that there is no system that doesn't need careful tending to with the occasional harsh pruning to promote health.
A great back-to-the-future column. As an aside, Mark's analysis of Turnbull - from the 2006 "queeny huff" to the 2018 "smallness" - was far more accurate and prescient than any local perspective. Unsurprisingly, MT is back on the republican bandwagon ahead of the release of his memoirs (which had to be rewritten in view of the May election result despite his best efforts to ensure his party's defeat).
Clive James is sadly missed, perhaps all the more because of his decade-long goodbye. A lot of common ground with Mark in many respects: His perspective on writing - "My enemy is elevated language" - mirrored his opinion of the political class. And turning down a knighthood fitted with his broader view that poetry should be accessible to all. "Japanese Maple" (reading online) is a very poignant farewell.
Thank you for that, Kate! Very moving!
Agree, Fran. The poem has a luminous quality about it.
Lots of tributes and interview replays this weekend, and it's been interesting to hear about his perspective on writing, and his outlook despite significant illness: like Christopher Hitchens, he was spurred on by a grim prognosis to produce some of his best work.
If there's one tree that I would love to plant outside my bedroom glass door it would be a Japanese maple. It's so beautiful when it turns colors. I would never want to take my eyes off of it.
Are the tributes easily available? Wouldn't mind if you passed some along, Kate.
There are hundreds - too many to read! - in just the last few days, Fran; both UK and Australian. Quite a few paywalls, but many are accessible. His TV interviews in recent years are worth watching too.
Just read a wonderful description of his "subversively traditional" writing which included the following: "... the inimitable phrasing, the nimble arpeggios of wit, the dizzy seesaw between lowbrow and high..."
(Georgie Williamson, The Australian).
Thanks for this, Kate. I'll get on it:)
It sounds like Australia rejected a new monarchy at home in favor of a more benevolent one removed from the taint of shallower politics.
By its title, the television show "The Outsiders" frames the situation in agreement with Clive James', "There is a danger in Australia constantly of the consensus of the commentariat separating too far from the opinion of the people, to the point where the commentariat becomes contemptuous of the people."
The commentariat and officialdom's growth together as a behemoth shrinks the role of the individual to irrelevance unless he acts en masse. In the US, power is devolving in a trickle, back to the people, in the media's utter deafness to President Trump's relatable and transparent speaking style, done with a finger on the pulse of America, knowing he is speaking for millions of people. He purposely doesn't "act" and sound like a stock character in stultifying political-speak, which fools the uninitiated and conceals what's despised about politics. By his refusal to conform, he steers (or tries to) the commentariat away from a toxic bloom of consensus. That's the point of democracy represented in republican form: from the people up, not the elite down.
As the name implies, "Insiders" (which airs on the national broadcaster at the same time as "Outsiders") exemplifies "the consensus of the commentariat separating too far from the opinion of the people, to the point where the commentariat becomes contemptuous of the people."
Thanks for sending Rupert Murdoch to give us one "outsider" network against all that is monolithically left.
Do you think the outcome of this vote would have been different if not for the subliminal effect of the republicans using the colors of the queen bee?
The gold - actually (wattle) yellow - may have had that unintended effect.
But it's more likely that voters were turned off by the idea of Malcolm as Monarch (which is how he still sees himself: First Prez). Insufferable man.
Wow! Can a knighthood, and Sir Mark Steyn, be far behind? Or course, Mark would have to take lessons from Zir Justin on how to pander and grovel to the right crowd. And ditch the classy threads for something more in the Sgt. Pepper-meets-the-Banana Boat line...
When one is shopping around for a king these days, the selection is quite underwhelming. The Austrian system of electing a figurehead president who is the backup if everything suddenly goes to hell seems like a decent, dull, compromise.
As someone who discovered Mark's writing shortly after this was written, I can wholeheartedly recommend The Face of the Tiger and From Head to Toe. These were the first of his books that I ordered, and which sit in pride of place on my shelves, autographed, next to my later purchases, America Alone, After America, Passing Parade (perhaps my favorite), Broadway Babies, The Undocumented Mark Steyn, the climate books, the Magna Carta book, and a Dorothy Fields monograph. Seventeen percent discount is mighty generous; indeed I would consider it churlish to wait for that anticipated extra percentage point next year. I can attest, as is also proven above, that the old columns read remarkably well.
Thanks to Tony Blair, the UK now has a "Supreme Court" which has claimed the sovereign right to overturn existing law and invent new law on the hoof. As a constitutional monarchist, I find myself wishing that the Queen would chop the heads off these arrogant judges.
Is there any other kind of judge?
I admit I voted for the republic back then, but I'm glad we lost. The 'minimalist' model seemed a reasonable idea at the time but I can see now the pressure on parliament to choose some no-hoper purely on the basis of diversity or reconciliation would have been unbearable. And the ridiculous revolving door of Prime Ministers over the last 10 years has since shown us how appealing a bit of stability can be, even if it does have to be provided from 10,000 miles away by a 93 year old woman. I like to put our loss down to the wisdom of the masses. (I hope the Brexit vote proves the same for Britain).
How clever, funny and wise was Clive James! One of his beliefs was that a sense of humour and common sense go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. The sour pusses trying to run the show today are certainly proving the truth of that.
All this blah blah...it's very easy to have a faux republic in Australia and my great great grandfather Thomas Mort set the standard waaaay back in the 1870s when he was very kindly offered a peerage by queen Victoria. His reply? "Thank you for your very kind offer. However, I'm just happy being known here as plain old Mr Mort. But thanks anyway!" He even specifically requested no monument when he died (may 10 1878). But he was so adored the working and business class erected a statue to him..the only privately erected statue on the city of Sydney.