News location:

Wednesday, November 27, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

As first king of Australia to visit, will Charles be the last?

King Charles… Although the Australian media has focused on the stops in Canberra and Sydney, the main purpose of the tour is for the king to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa between October 21 and 26. (Photo: Buckingham Palace via AP)

Charles III will be the first king of Australia to visit our shores. He could also be the last, says JESS CARNIEL.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s upcoming visit to Australia is significant for several reasons. It is Charles’ first visit since ascending to the throne – as well as the first time a British male head of state has visited Australia.

Some observers are also wondering whether it might be one of the last royal tours, as debates about Australia potentially becoming a republic are reignited.

As the monarchy tries to “modernise” alongside growing support for republicanism, this visit will be one to watch.

The curse of the Antipodes?

As Prince of Wales, Charles had a long and successful track record of royal tours to Australia, having visited 16 times. The visits included a term attending Geelong Grammar School in 1966, as well as the 1983 tour with Princess Diana that saw Australians caught up in Di-mania – and Charles reportedly gripped by jealousy.

But Charles’ royal predecessors weren’t as lucky in their trips down under. His own grandfather, King George VI, planned to visit Australia in the late 1940s with Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret, but the tour was postponed due to his poor health. While he had previously visited as the Duke of York, George VI never made it here as king.

King George VI was born in 1895 and reigned from 1936 until his death in 1952. Photo: Wikimedia

The very first royal visit to Australia – Prince Alfred’s 1867 tour – had all appearance of being cursed. One of his crew members drowned during the first stop in South Australia. Several more people died in a major fire accident and a Catholic-Protestant skirmish in Melbourne.

Most memorably – certainly for Alfred – was an assassination attempt on the prince in Sydney. This, interestingly, is an experience King Charles has also had.

During Charles’ 1994 visit, student protester David Kang fired blanks from a starter pistol in protest of Australia’s treatment of Cambodian refugees. The then Prince of Wales wasn’t harmed and Kang went on to become a barrister.

For non-British royals, however, Sydney has been a lucky location. King Frederick X’s decidedly modern romance with Tasmania-born Queen Mary famously began when they met at a bar during the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

Prince or king – does it matter?

This will be Charles’ seventeenth visit to Australia, but his first as reigning monarch. This means he is visiting not on behalf of the head of state, but as the head of state.

The royal couple’s planned Australian engagements are as strategic as they are symbolic. They reflect carefully curated and ostensibly “non-political” issues such as environmental sustainability, cancer research and family violence.

The visit also includes a meeting with indigenous representatives. Notably, it is the first royal tour to not use the term “walkabout” to describe public meet-and-greets, as this term had been criticised as cultural appropriation.

It seems Charles’ modernised monarchy is seeking to distance itself from overtly colonial language – as much as a foreign monarchy can, anyway. The king has yet to respond to indigenous leaders calling for an apology for British colonisers’ genocides of First Nations peoples.

Although the Australian media has focused on the stops in Canberra and Sydney, the main purpose of the tour is for the king to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa between October 21 and 26.

It is the first time the meeting will be hosted by a Pacific Island state. The talks are an important opportunity for the king to highlight issues such as climate change, to which small island states in the Pacific are particularly vulnerable.

Are people happy about the visit?

All six state premiers have declined their invitations to meet the king at his welcome reception in Canberra, citing other commitments. Their excuses might be genuine in some cases. For example, Queensland Premier Steven Miles is in the last few weeks of an election campaign.

However, critics from the monarchist camp have viewed the move as a political response to debates over whether Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy with the king as its head of state.

A YouGov Australia poll published on the first anniversary of Charles’s ascension showed Australians are divided on republicanism. While 32% want to become a republic “as soon as possible”, 35% preferred to remain a constitutional monarchy and 12% wanted to become a republic after the king’s death. The remaining respondents didn’t know.

Notably, the poll found republican sentiment had increased since Queen Elizabeth II’s death in September 2022.

The Albanese government established an assistant minister for the republic upon entering office in 2022 (although the portfolio was abolished with this year’s reshuffle). Upon taking the role, assistant minister Matt Thistlethwaite suggested the “twilight of [Queen Elizabeth’s] reign” presented “a good opportunity for a serious discussion about what comes next for Australia”.

Charles doesn’t seem to be taking all this too personally. In a letter responding to the Australian Republican Movement in March this year, his private secretary said the king viewed this as “a matter for the Australian public to decide”.

The royal tour and the meeting in Samoa will be important opportunities for the monarchy to connect with Australia and other Commonwealth nations.

By presenting itself as a modern institution engaged with contemporary issues such as climate change, the monarchy will also have to engage with the possibility of new political identities for its former colonies.The Conversation

Jess Carniel, Associate professor in Humanities, University of Southern Queensland. Republished from The Conversation.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

THE CONVERSATION

THE CONVERSATION

Share this

10 Responses to As first king of Australia to visit, will Charles be the last?

David says: 17 October 2024 at 11:52 am

The Republican movement would have a lot better chance if they actually had a plan beyond “we don’t like the monarchy yuck yuck”! It failed before for the same reasons as the Voice. No argument about need for change but no sellable options provided for what to change to. Every time the Republican movement mentions the monarchy you know they still haven’t got a sellable idea about what it should be replaced with. The path forward is not about the monarchy, it’s about the alternative. Nobody wants another politician and certainly not one with any power over day to day operations. The streets aren’t filled with over half the population screaming ‘save our king’. They’re actually asking, what’s your alternative? Why aren’t we discussing that now? Present a sellable alternative and the progression to another referendum will look after itself as it will be in our politicians interest to support. We’re supposed to be moving to a more accepting, less bullying society. So why is the Republican movement still following a strategy of bullying the monarchy rather than presenting a sellable alternative?

Where are we at with the alternative/s to the monarchy for head of state?

Reply
Peter Graves says: 17 October 2024 at 4:49 pm

Though not being a member of the ARM, I favour the following means of electing the German President, through the federal Convention (from https://www.bundestag.de/en/parliament/function/federal_convention):
“Members of the Bundestag and representatives of the Länder
The Federal Convention consists of all Members of the Bundestag and an equal number of members elected by the parliaments of the Länder.

The number of representatives which the individual Länder may send to the Federal Convention is calculated based on the population of each Land.

Once the venue and date of the Federal Convention and the number of its members have been announced, the representatives of the Länder are elected by the Land parliaments in line with the principles of proportional representation. They are usually members of the parliaments of the Länder, but local politicians and figures from other areas of public life may also be elected.”

It goes on about the nominees for that vacancy:
“Nomination and conduct of the election
The Federal President is elected by secret ballot without any prior debate.

In theory, any German who is at least forty years old is eligible for election. Candidates may be proposed by any member of the Federal Convention.

If none of the candidates receives an absolute majority, i.e. more than half the votes, in the first and second ballots, a third ballot is held. In this case, a relative majority is sufficient: whoever receives the most votes wins. New candidates can also be nominated for the second and third ballots.”

Still a figurehead, too.

Reply
David says: 18 October 2024 at 9:42 am

Well, that’s the easy part and takes us down the road of a common political appointment. “Without prior debate” only refers to when they actually cast the votes. All the public debate will occur well before that. A bit like saying we have no prior debate in Australia because there is a media blackout on the night of the election.

The hard part is what powers, budget do you give this president ? We don’t want anyone who interferes in Australian politics anymore than the current head of state. How do you stop someone who decides to exercise their powers beyond the “intention” ? People incorrectly view it as a figurehead position but that is only valid because the monarchy treats it this way and very rarely exercises any of the powers that come with the position. By making it a political appointment you run the real risk of changing it away from just a figurehead. That has always been the problem.

People don’t like the monarchy because they don’t like the figurehead but they actually like the monarchy because they treat the position as just being a figurehead.

As for Kerr’s Cur, like the republican debate, it has very little to do with the monarchy and all about the politics within Australia. Do you really want yet another politic appointment involved ?

I’ve printed all the decent suggestions for changing the head of state and placed them on the still empty table beside me. I guess the republican movement is still waiting for enough people to dislike the monarchy and doing whatever they can to make that happen. What a wonderful world.

Reply
Peter Graves says: 18 October 2024 at 1:20 pm

“As for Kerr’s Cur, like the republican debate, it has very little to do with the monarchy” Really ?

You really do need to read Jenny Hocking’s “The Palace Letters” to realise how precisely Buckingham Palace was directly involved in the conspiracy between Fraser, Kerr and Barwick.

Reply
David says: 18 October 2024 at 5:09 pm

The palace had to be involved, no choice in the matter. However, it only got to the palace because of the politics in Australia. Whitlam should have called an election but didn’t because he knew he would lose. Australia was in deadlock so the palace was called. Somehow it’s their fault for being head of state. So what should have the palace have done? Gone to Whitlam and said, well you seem to be stuck with no supply and on your own reckoning will lose an election as the public don’t wont you, so, we’ll exercise the power we really don’t want to exercise by leaving you in place? BTW the high court was also involved so definitely the palace’s fault. Of course it was a conspiracy, how else was it going to be handled? No worse than clinging to power when you don’t actually have any and you know you’ll lose an election if called.

As per usual people are more aghast with the palace being involved than what was actually happening in Australia, which was the real issue. Hard to believe anyone honesty believes Australia would have been better off if the head of state was a political figure.

This sounds disturbing like, well we have no good ideas so let’s turn the public against the palace.

I’m not a Monarchist or Republicans, I just want a head of state who is a figurehead only, not political and generally not a burden on tax payers (not on the government payroll).

Reply
Peter Graves says: 19 October 2024 at 8:23 pm

Perhaps if you read that book I recommended, the full details would be apparent. Whitlam went to the GG to ask for a half-Senate election. on 11 November. Kerr had already made up his mind – buttressed by Buckingham Palace – and Fraser was skulking and waiting in a back room. Fraser’s car was hidden around the back of Yarralumla, so as not to give the game away to PM Whitlam.

Kerr made up all his powers on some mystical “reserve” powers of “The Crown” – where Kerr imagined himself representing the Crown. Not Australia.

And it can still happen – given a GG who imagines personal powers that are not laid down. Anwhere – in Australian law, especially. Not being “guided” by an unelected overseas sinecure occupied automatically by birth, to which no Australian can ever aspire.

Reply
David says: 20 October 2024 at 9:11 am

I think your missing about the point about what powers actually need to be vested in a head of state and are more worried about the figurehead (how does my hair look today) side of things. Whitlam shouldn’t have been asking for a half senate election, supply was blocked so call a double dissolution election and let the public decide. If the public agrees with him them the house will be fixed in a clean open way rather than trying to sneak it through with a half senate election which he may still have lost. Once again would it have been any better if we had an Australian political figure in that place? Yes a lot of people would have missed the opportunity to bully the monarchy and carry on in ways we are apparently not supposed to be doing. As you rightly point out, there were a lot of prominent Australians skulking around and its hard to imagine if we had an Australian head of state at the time that wouldn’t have come from the pool with those type of people in it. Would it be any different if Kerr was head of state and didn’t even need to go to the monarchy ?

Reply
David says: 20 October 2024 at 9:58 am

Also, let’s not forgot the outcome was exactly what you want an independent arbitrator to do. “You’ve got yourselves in a mess politically so we need supply guaranteed and it taken back to the people to decide a way forward’. Or, it’s not about the head of state but the people, so the head of state’s role is to ensure it gets put back to the people to decide the way forward. It’s all about being a figurehead.

Reply
Peter Graves says: 21 October 2024 at 11:09 am

Perhaps if you realised that “the mess” was a conspiracy between Fraser, his Senators (who never did reject Supply), The Chief Justice Barwick and Kerr – utterly manufactured by that clique who maintained that the people of Australia made a mistake in electing Whitlam.

Reply
David says: 21 October 2024 at 4:31 pm

That sounds like something pushing for a double dissolution election would have easily proved one way or the other. Begs the question……

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Opinion

KEEPING UP THE ACT

Okay, kids, let's all sing along to Canberra's favourite transport song, Chris Steel on the Bus (goes round and round).

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews