Charles can be right royal pain
TWO words Australia’s cocky monarchists fear are “King Charles”.
Monarchists have reason to feel confident that Australia’s republic ambitions remain a distant dream. But that could all change when Charles accedes to the throne.
The affection that many have for the Queen and the younger royals does not extend to Charles.
He is a polarising figure who lacks warmth and charisma.
Most have forgiven Charles for his dreadful treatment of Diana, however, they may not be so forgiving when a kooky activist and hypocrite is the head of state.
Charles has accused global leaders of “catastrophically underestimating” the effects of global warming.
Worse still, he linked climate change to the Syrian civil war in 2015: “Some of us were saying 20 years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought … There’s very good evidence that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that lasted for five or six years.”
Climate scientists have dismissed the prince’s “overblown claims” and a 2017 study by King’s College London and the University of Sussex debunked his theory.
Then there is the matter of his hypocrisy. While the prince lectures the world about the imminent threat posed by our excesses, he takes private jets across the globe even when on “environmental tours”. He even uses private aircraft, adding to his already substantial carbon footprint, for trips that could be made by car, including the 110km from his Gloucestershire home to a polo club.
On a weekend in 2015, shortly before his Syria comments, Charles took four short helicopter flights that reportedly used about 750 litres of aviation fuel, compared with only 15 litres of petrol if he’d gone by car.
Charles’ bizarre comments are not confined to the environment. He has, for instance, said: “Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost.”
The prince also gave a speech in 2010 titled “Islam and the Environment” in which he urged adherence to Islamic principles to save the environment. This is the sort of commentary you’d expect to hear from a soypowered first-year arts student, not a man destined to be the head of the Church of England. Can you imagine the Queen making such ill-advised comments? Part of the reason she is beloved is her devotion to duty.
As it stands, about half of the country supports Australia becoming a republic. Polling last August showed 51 per cent were in favour while 38 per cent were against and 11 per cent remain undecided.
The gender divide continues to widen with 59 per cent of men in favour compared with only 44 per cent of women.
Many of us may like the idea of a republic in principle but the movement falls apart when it comes to detail, chiefly how the head of state would be elected. That was ultimately what defeated the 1999 Republican Referendum.
Back then there was great enthusiasm for change and polls showed that between 54 and 66 per cent wanted to dump the monarchy.
The masses wanted a popularly elected head of state but the model put forward was parliamentary appointment by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament.
There’s good reason to avoid direct elections; voters selecting the president would politicise a role meant to be ceremonial.
You don’t abandon a system that has served us well to appease blowhards who think becoming a republic will change the nation’s character.
Paul Keating’s recent sneering commentary did not help the republican cause.
“No great state has ever had the monarch of another country as its head of state. Australia is a diminished country, diminished by its own hand,” he said. What nonsense.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the former head of the Australian Republican Movement, has recently flagged a postal vote on the issue.
That seems foolhardy given it is doomed to fail unless there is a palatable model put to the public.
Republicans should wait for King Charles’ reign before wasting any more public money trying to change the constitution.
WHILE THE PRINCE LECTURES THE WORLD ABOUT THE IMMINENT THREAT POSED BY OUR EXCESSES, HE TAKES PRIVATE JETS ACROSS THE GLOBE