As a British visitor to Australia, I was astonished to read the statement by Neville Wran on behalf of the Republican Movement that Camilla Parker-Bowles might become the next "Queen of Australia".
The Prince of Wales has stated publically that he will never marry Camilla Parker-Bowles and the British public most certainly would not accept her as queen.
So Mr Wran and your Republican Movement can rest safe in the knowledge that there will never be a "Queen Camilla of Australia" - or, for that matter, of Britain either.
There, sadly, are occassions in British politics when standards fall pretty low , but rarely as low as represented in the statement by the Republican Movement. If Australia chooses to become a republic and cuts its ties with Britian, so be it; it is entirely a matter for the Australian voting public, but it would surely be helpful to these voters if the Republican Movement could speak the truth and not show that it so lacks political morality.
I assume that the Republican Movement does have some policies and beliefs based on truth and does not have to descend to misinformation and involving the British monarchy in its campaign.
P.G.J. Limbrey, Goolwa, SA.
[ YAR reply ]
I wish to reply to P.G.J. Limbrey's letter "Camilla won't be Queen".
While it may be true that Prince Charles has publically stated that he will
not marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, this decision could be subject to change.
Mr. Neville Rann, like the majority of Australian Republicans can never rest assured, as Mr Limbrey would like us to, safe in the knowledge that there will never be a Queen Camilla of Australia, or, for that matter, Britain. Republicans can not rest assured about the Australian Head of State until it is a position decided upon by Australians, and not something that Australians are dictated to by the British rules of monarchical succession. P.G.J. Limbrey talks of the Republican movement in Australia having no political morality, apparently shown by actually daring to mention the British monarchy in the "YES!" campaign. I find this statement to be somewhat ludicrous. To run a political campaign is, obviously, to dissuade voters of the legitimacy of the opposing stance. This is something seen in all countries, from Labor and the Tories in Britain, to the ALP and Liberal Parties in Australia.
So, why should the monarchy be sacrosanct? Australian Republicans advocate
a mature and rational discussion concerning the constitutional future of our
country, and this does, of course, require a discussion about the monarchy.
P.G.J. Limbrey asks if the Republican movement has an policies and "beliefs
based on truth", and the answer is yes. Republicans seek to inform
Australians of many things, but in my view the two most fundamentally
important are:
1] that the current Australian Head of State is not an Australian citizen,
and is not the Govenor-General. The Governor-General is the British monarchy's
representative in Australia.
2] The Australian Head of State is the British monarch, whose succession is
governed completely by a British Act of Parliament. Thus, under current
consititutional arrangements, Australians can never have a say over who their
Head of State is to be.
So, when P.G.J. Limrey talks of a descent into misinformation he really should be looking at those who advocate retention of the current constitutional arrangements. It is these people, who through the media, are constantly spreading the fundamental mistruth that the Australian Head of State is the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, which is a blatant mistruth.
Scott Carn
Young Australians for a Republic [SA]
YAR Website Co*Ordinator
Scott Carn is the SA Executive Member of Young Australians for a Republic, and a founding member of the Adelaide University Republican Association [AURA]. For more information you can contact him at [ gangas@senet.com.au ].
Join the YAR Mailing List @ ListBot.
