This post is inspired by fiona patten's comment (link):
"Yep we [the Australian Sex Party] are not going to be all things to all people- but hopefully we can make some positive change."
Prince Charles, who will in time be King of Australia as he will be of the United Kingdom, wants to take the opposite tack. He wanted to be Defender of Faiths when he becomes King, rather than Defender of the Faith, that is, a particular faith (originally the Roman Catholic faith). That proved controversial, particularly with the Church that he would be the formal head of, but no longer the defender of. So, he's had a new idea (link).
In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
However, there would be huge obstacles to overcome before the Prince can fulfil his wish which he has discussed with some of his closest advisers. It would require Parliament to agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act which came into law after changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year. A senior source told The Daily Telegraph: "There have been lots of discussions. He would like to be known as the Defender of Faith which is a subtle but hugely symbolic shift."
As a monarchist, I acknowledge that there are now no circumstances in which a king or queen of Australia would overrule a Governor General or a Prime Minister, but I think the sovereign is valuable as a traditional symbol above partisan politics. Being the head of the winning political party does not put your picture on the money or on pictures on the wall. There are honors that the scufflers in the grubby brawls of politics, however successful, don't get to ascend to. They are reserved for someone who doesn't even live in the country. And the monarchy is a reminder of tradition in a country where there is no Bill of Rights and where it's tradition, culture and unwritten convention that have, however imperfectly, nourished and protected freedom.
If the monarch isn't willing to be a symbol of something in particular, I think that's an argument against his usefulness.
I don't think you can be a useful symbol of "faiths" or "faith" (in general) in the sense that it seems Prince Charles wants to be.
Faith is specific: it's trust and belief in someone or something, or some group like a pantheon. It's not just a feeling of high-mindedness combined with a desire to be all things to all people. Jesus or Osiris, Krishna or Buddha, Isis or Joseph Smith, Muhammed or Odin, pick one, or with Richard Dawkins none, but if you have faith, you should be willing to choose and defend that choice.
Between Christopher Hitchens (abrasively atheist) and his younger brother Peter Hitchens (actively and solidly Church of England), does Charles have a side, at all?
There's a moment in United 93 (2006) (link), in Chapter 18, an hour and thirty minutes in, where people on the plane are praying: the jihadists to Allah, and the others to Jesus (plus, presumably, Jews praying to their God). What side, in particular, would the Defender of Faith be on? On the side of the faithful, of course. On the side of those praying, and with their causes.
That doesn't cut it. The title "Defender of Faith" is not serious. It's not even symbolic defense of anyone or any cause.
I can't see the benefit, the positive change to be brought about. If you are a member of some tiny minority religion, such as an Australian Aboriginal persisting in your ancient tradition or a reconstructionist British druid trying to revive yours, the King will be no more a symbol of the defense of your rights than he ever was. To the extent that jihadists were emboldened to believe that yet another symbolic defender of a religion other than Islam had crumbled, you would be less secure in your rights.
We may come to a time where the Australian Sex Party is serious, in the sense of being willing to say what it stands for and commit to defending it, and the king of the country will not be serious, in the same sense.
The title is applicable when applied to faith in government. No matter how many times government fails and insults their intelligence, they must keep faith and the Prince will be the symbol for keeping that faith.
In Australia, the sovereign is more like a symbol of strictly limited faith in the government. There is no Mount Rushmore. Top politicians do not get to be the nation incarnate. I think that's a good thing.
My understanding is that the UK is one of the more secular nations in the world. Australia is somewhere in the middle according to these poll results. (note: poll results have been cherry-picked, can't access the original pdf).
My point is that even as a "Defender of the faith", he would only be defending 55% of the UK and 16% of the UK (protestants). Much less (in the UK) if we're talking Catholics.
Furthermore, I think most people agree that the British monarchy is more a stage show than an actual political organization. It doesn't matter what his title is: he has no power to make changes. He has neither the power to protect protestants, nor a history of speaking on behalf of protestants.
So what's the point? (of his title change? of this post? both?)
The point of the changes Charles is reported to want is that he won't stand up for anything that might be archaic and politically incorrect.
The point of my post is that the sovereign is a symbol, and if the man or woman who holds the job is not willing to stand for things that are old-fashioned and politically incorrect, then the case for having such a person as "the King" in the first place is weakened.
There's something worse than to be the standard of bygone virtues, which is what Queen Elizabeth II has become. And that's to become, by your own choice, a symbol of unwillingness to commit, unwillingness to stand your ground, and the resolute defense of ... nothing in particular.
David Blue, that is most definitely a good thing.
The Fidei defensor title was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X, and it was revoked over 400 years ago.
Now I ask, if they revoke your driver's license in Britain, can you still drive your car? If they take your television license away, can you still legally watch the BBC? Somebody needs to set an example over there.
Glen, I believe by Act of Parlaiment, the title was restored shortly thereafter.
For all American penchant for monuments to dead Presidents, the Constitution forbids such titles. With the exception of Obama, the I, of course.
David, doesn't the monarch maintain more than a symbolic role in the Anglican Church?
PD Shaw:
Role of the Monarch
Today the Monarch retains the title Defender of the Faith and is still the Supreme Governor of the Church. He or she has to:
OK. So now this makes more sense. It still strikes me as more of a formality than an actual duty; although his idea of being the defender many faiths clearly doesn't work when even formalities are required.
Still, as an American, I see the monarchy as largely irrelevant to anything(Parliament is different). As you say "it's a symbol", but a symbol without purpose is useless.
Okay, so if your license is revoked, but you and your buddies forge a new one in your basement, you can still drive? What an example for England's lawless youth.
I suppose, though from poor Henry's position, the Pope's inability to revoke his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn suggested a comparable inability to revoke his title.
But the important thing is that the title is currently bestowed by Act of Parlaiment. And Prince Charles, having reached the youthful age of sixty, is in the unseemly position of demanding an honorific that is no doubt undeserved by his past deeds or future prospects. Whatever happened to the good old days when a monarch would slay a dragon or spear a religous dissident to earn a title? What has Prince Charles done to deserve the title he seeks? Has he opened the way for a Catholic to be a king or queen, or marry one? Prime Minister?
David - since your posts are usually informative and enlightening I have to ask - how can an educated, intelligent person who is not a member of a flat earth society be a monarchist?
As an American, I thought this whole issue was settled around 1776. Monarchs are inbred and irrelevant, end of story. This discussion sounds like a debate about angels on the head of a pin, or witchcraft, or the coconut-carrying migratory patterns of African swallows.
#12 from Mary:
First, thanks for your kind words, Mary, and I'll do my best to keep my posts worthwhile for you. I noticed Armed Liberal was carrying the site too much by his own efforts, so I'm making an effort to post more often. That will mean not all my posts will be gems. On the other hand, practice makes perfect, or less imperfect.
I'd love to hear from Japanese monarchists, if we have any here, on what your monarchy means to you. Or Zulu monarchists, or supporters of restoring the Czars in Russia, and so on. I can only speak for myself in my country.
About a third of Australians favor the monarchy outright, about a third favor a republic where the president is appointed by politicians and is purely a figurehead, and about a third favor a president who would be an elected official with some real power, American style. And we also differ on the key question: if you can't get your first preference, what is your second choice?
I believe the president, if there is to be one, should be elected by the people. Let me put this bluntly: no popular vote: no president.
That position is extremely unpopular with politicians, and with the Labor Party. (Liberal Party = Republican Party; Labor Party = Democratic Party.) They believe strongly that the president should be a purely symbolic figure, chosen by politicians.
From my point of view, that's no good. A head of state represents the nation. If the head of state is defined as somebody the people don't get to vote on and who politicians choose (and, probably at will dismiss too) as a powerless symbol of the nation, that arrangement itself is symbolic. It's symbolic of the people being denied a vote and defined as a powerless creature of elite privilege. The president would not be a symbol of there being traditions and history that ought to be above politics, but of the people being beneath the politicians.
As strongly as I feel about that, Republicans feel just as strongly that the monarchy is an archaic institution that ought to be abolished forthwith, and that its offensive and absurd that the sovereign of Australia is someone who doesn't live in the country.
So the matter was put to a vote in a great constitutional discussion on which was the best model to move to if we quit the monarchy, followed by a national referendum on 6 November 1999 on whether we should move to that model, which turned out to be an "appointed not elected" model.
The Republic was defeated everywhere, on pure class lines. The richer you were, the more you wanted a Republic. The poorer you were, the more you favored the Monarchy.
For now, that's how the issue stands. However, Republicans won't ever accept that the matter is settled, until it's settled in their favor.
I'm not ashamed of standing with the poorer classes, and with those who want a vote.
#12 from Mary:
I know. An American friend who toured Australia living with her online friends in each state was pleasantly boggled on a regular basis by the things she was seeing. We would begin and end our trips around the city of Sydney outside the Queen Victoria Building, at the feet of what she called the giant statue of "the Great Goddess Queen Victoria" or by the talking fountain of Queen Victoria's favorite dog, and on the way to whatever I thought she might want to see or do she'd pause at simple business signs like COLONIAL and say things like "... uh, that's really ... blunt." Her perspective that all this stuff was as settled as the fate of the Roman Empire, and for our own sake we ought to let it go. That's how Americans think.
But the Federation of Australia wasn't created by revolutionaries, it was signed into law by Queen Victoria in one of the last acts of her long life. She's the founding mother, and there are no obvious "founding fathers" as I learned in detail in a delightful lecture from a historian who went into why nobody had been able to claim that title. (For one thing, if you want people to call you the "founding father" and keep a straight face, it's better not to be notorious for fathering bastards.) Typically, your nation's founding fathers or mother will impress some of their character on their progeny. They get statues and stuff like that, to reinforce the traditions and values that constitute the national DNA. Since there never was a revolution, and there never was a civil war, the simple agreement signed into law by Queen Victoria stands from that day to this, and her name is good.
#12 from Mary:
Part of the fun of travel and part of the fun of the Internet and the blogsphere is that you get to talk to polite, friendly and intelligent people who have completely different ideas, traditions and institutions from you. Right?
Here's how I see it. The English speaking peoples are distinct, as Sir Winston Churchill thought they were. England is the Mother of Parliaments, with many democratic children, including India by (forceful) adoption. Australia simply went through democracy university, graduated with good marks in due course, and works steadily at a nice job. America is the son who rebelled, dropped out of school, and declared he didn't need all this education nonsense, he was going to be a self-made billionaire before he was thirty - and was every bit as talented as he thought he was, and is now the big success of the family. But generally speaking, the dropouts, though of course better than the countries that were never brought up in the British way, have been less democratic and less successful than those accepted the traditions that lead to moderation and freedom, and who stuck through the full course of education for democracy. British influence is a great predictor of democracy and basically all good things. Those who reject it get what you'd expect. See: Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, formerly the British colony of Southern Rhodesia.
So, from my point of view, things that carry on the benevolent British tradition are good, and by default worth a little attention. Symbolic abandonments of that tradition are also worth noticing, and they are bad.
(And yes we already have an appointed Head of State, the Governor General, and the Queen's sole vital role is to appoint him on the advice of the Prime Minister. But let's not complicate this. Bottom line: this is all symbolic, but people care about those symbols.)
Mary, I'm not saying "trust information on wikis" in general, but this page on the Republican Referendum is good: (link).
If you look at Current status, you'll see that all the top people want a Republic: the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (that's the alternative Prime Minister), and the Governor General. (And the mainstream media, and all progressives, and on a map all the hotbeds of Republicansism are the richest suburbs.) They strongly, strongly dislike not being supreme, above all as a class, and in a symbolic sense. Exactly what I like about the "no Mount Rushmore for you" they hate, for the same reasons. So they know what they want, and why we won't give it to them.
They just haven't got the votes to get the Republican model they want: one where the people don't get to vote on who the President is.
My views are not exactly unusual in Australia.
...
I agree it's a bad idea to in effect put to a no confidence vote a tradition that created our nation without revolution and has maintained it ever since without civil war, and that without any agreed alternative to go to. And I agree if you ask the people and make it a multi-option question, they are sure to demand a vote, and that's exactly why we won't ever see that question in a plebescite.
Re: #11 from PD Shaw:
Here's the Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession, a 15 page PDF: (link)
See also (if you wish) this story, filed London, Aug 3, 2007 (link): "Peter Phillips, the Queen of Great Britain’s eldest grandson, may have to give up his place in the line of succession for the throne because his fiancée is Roman Catholic."
In law and in symbol, the King of England is about as secular a figure as the Pope.
#11 from PD Shaw:
Just so.
#11 from PD Shaw:
Well, Michael Romanov I became Czar by getting elected by a national convention, and Queen Elizabeth II of Australia reigns because we had a great referendum and the Republicans lost comprehensively, and as we know from Star Wars, the Queen of Naboo is also an elective position. :P So getting elected works.
I just think that talking like a mealy-mouthed politician who stands for nothing but his own continued incumbency doesn't work.
#11 from PD Shaw:
He's stuck to the script. Except that now he's not sticking to the script.
#11 from PD Shaw:
Definitely not, as the links I gave above show.
By the way, PD Shaw: as a Marshal, I exploit my privilege to correct my typos without notice, exactly as is we all had preview, so it's really unfair of me to pick on your typos. Which I will anyway.
That's Catherine of Aragon.
Aragorn II, also known as Strider, is a different person entirely.
If England becomes a republic, it will be for the wrong reasons; it will be because the shit-for-brains "The Queen bloody killed Princess Diana" crowd gains ascendancy.
As they have in this country, for the nonce.
Re #17 David Blue, and apologies in advance for a slight derail:
The advantage of a monarchy is that a good monarch can really get things done. The disadvantage of one is that a really bad one can get things done, too. Regarding Aragorn II, a fictional example of the former; well, does not the West need him, and need him BAD?
"Hold your ground - hold your ground! Sons of Gondor - of Rohan . . . my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. The day may come when the courage of Men fails; when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship; but it is not this day - an hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the Age of Man comes crashing down - but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth - I bid you stand!"
Let us hope that the speech of the other king in that book will not be necessary:
"Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!"
"And yes we already have an appointed Head of State, the Governor General, and the Queen's sole vital role is to appoint him on the advice of the Prime Minister. But let's not complicate this. Bottom line: this is all symbolic, but people care about those symbols.)"
If you are going to talk about the monarchy and Australia, you cannot minimize the Queen's role in governing.
It is my understanding The Queen is the Head of State and the Governor General is the Queen's representative. Unless things have changed since the 70s. The Queen, though the Governor-General, has the power to dissolve Parliament, no mean responsibility.
The Governor General is appointed based upon the Australian government's recomendation so in normal circumstances the Governor General's advice to the Queen would represent that of the Government.
In 1975 Governor-General Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and dissolved Parliament. The reason was that WShitlam cold not get the supply bill (Finance) passed by the Senate.
In earlier times when a government could not get the supply bill through the Senate this would trigger the government to dissolve both hoses and go to the people. Whitlam refused.
In law and in symbol, the King of England is about as secular a figure as the Pope.
That's what I was getting at. As we like to say around here, Prince Charles is trying to put lipstick on a pig. He wants a title that conceals what he truly is.
And thanks for the link to the excellent Act of Settlement background. It points out that removing the religious restrictions on the monarchy would (a) give rise to the issue of disestablishing the Church of England and (b) pose an international issue among the Commonwealth.
The monarch is required by the Act to be in communion with the Church of England in order to secure the religion, laws and liberties of these realms. Prince Charles would be expected to defend the Church of England against a perceived threat to the established faith and the liberty to practice that faith. I don't think that he can defend "any faith" that would restrict the liberties of the Church of England to practice their faith.
Thanks, David, for the explanation. Here's how I see it. ...America is the son who rebelled, dropped out of school, and declared he didn't need all this education nonsense, he was going to be a self-made billionaire before he was thirty - and was every bit as talented as he thought he was, and is now the big success of the family...
Here's how I see it. America is the young, brash scientist who realized that his teacher/elders were relying on theories that clearly did not work in practice. America did a few bold, innovative experiments that were way ahead of their time. The experiments worked better than anyone expected.
The elders realized that these innovations worked, but the couldn't admit that their old theories were outdated and wrong, so they quietly incorporated the new theories while holding onto outdated remnants of the old ways. As most people do, they called the discarded, proven-wrong theories and practices "tradition", and they kept these traditions going as a form of community building. And entertainment. Despite all of his failings, no one could say that Prince Charles and family fail to entertain.
British culture isn't inherently better than any other, but of all the European cultures, it is the most innovative. Britain is kind of like Xerox to America's Bill Gates & Steve Jobs. Xerox came up with a lot of good ideas that kind of worked, but they didn't know how to apply or market them. Bill and Steve kind of stole the ideas, fixed them up and ran with them. Like Xerox, the traditionalist/innovators know that they're just as smart (or maybe even smarter) than the radical innovators. They can't figure out why they're still stuck in the same old routines, making copiers...
Aragorn II, also known as Strider, is a different person entirely.
He was the corporal on F Troop, right?
Well this all seems to point to a grave mistake made by we Americans when we opted to get rid of the monarchy. Had we not Dubya would never risen above Prince of Wales. Dad would still be on the throne and we wouldn't be in this mess.
Subtle characters these Brits.
David - your email doesn't work - can you drop me a note?
TOC, this leads me to what I think is an interesting point. I don't claim to be a historian, but it may well be that the American Revolution and everything that flowed from it was (at least partially) a result of a genetic accident in the British Royal Family - which ultimately means that the AR was in part caused by some random cosmic ray particle passing through the genitals of George II (or his Queen).
Why is this a possibility? Simply because George III was gradually going insane, throughout his reign, as a result of the genetic disease of porphyria. And therefore made some poor decisions, one or more of which led to the colonists deciding to cut the cord.
What would the Western world look like now, if that heavy ion had passed a centimetre to the left? Much of history is a result of random accident.
#26 from Fletcher Christian at 11:58 pm on Nov 20, 2008
I hadn't taken this into my calculations. I'll give it some thought and get back to you.