Talk of republic almost criminal

MAY I comment on the article by Paul Murray (TC, 5/8) regarding the concept of an Australian republic?

I state firstly that I am a monarchist, however in my heart not a constitutionalist. I believe kings should rule, not be answerable to parliament.

What was done by Cromwell and certain MPs in England in 1649 was treason, impure and simple. Treason as defined by law is rebellion by subjects against the monarch, not vice versa King Charles I was unlawfully charged with treason against the people, however he was incapable of committing that crime.

The charge drafted by the barrister John Cooke and the ensuing tribunal presided over by John Bradshaw, formed from the House of Commons, were both unlawful and the king was quite within his rights to demand to know under what authority they operated.

The House of Commons, for one, had no authority to form a court without the House of Lords being also involved as partner in the formulation. Bradshaw said to the king that he was before a court.

Charles replied that he was aware he was before a power.

The king was sentenced to death by that court and on January 30, 1649, he was judicially murdered at Whitehall.

Now, to my point. Australia, so says the ARM, must have an Australian head of state. This organisation is being intentionally duplicitous as we already have an Australian in that office, namely General Sir Peter Cosgrove.

The High Court ruled some years ago that the Governor-General is Australia’s head of state. By that declaration the question is resolved.

Also the changeover from the office of GG to president would be extremely complicated and not the simplistic exercise the ARM declares it to be.

Queensland stands as a separate monarchy within Australia as Her Majesty, while Queen of Australia, is separately Queen of Queensland. The nation could conceivably vote to go to a republic and Queensland would have to have an entirely different set of circumstances applied. Queensland could remain a monarchy and would then require its own defence force, as existed before federation in 1901, and its borders would be the boundaries of a separate nation.

My grandfather went off to South Africa (Boer War) as a soldier in the 3rd Queensland Mounted Infantry, not the Australian Army. This would be but one of a multitude of problems to be overcome.

Another point to be considered is that it must be recognised King Charles II did not rule from 1660, when he returned from exile – called The Restoration – but from 1649, when his father was executed. From the time of Charles’ death in 1649, his son, the Prince of Wales, also Charles, was, without any time gap, king.

The laws that stated the office of king was abolished were never valid and England, despite some opinions, was never a republic between 1649 and 1660.

Le roi est mort, longue vie au roi (The king is dead, long live the king). It has been thus since medieval times, despite the opinions of such as the republican and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, that the proclamation for Charles II was unlawful, as he had not yet been crowned.

This is shown to be “false doctrine” by example that Edward VIII (1936) was never crowned yet still had to abdicate in favour of his brother George VI after the crisis of the Mrs Simpson affair.

Princess Victoria was woken from sleep to be informed that her uncle, William IV (1830–1837), was dead and thus she was now queen. She died in 1901.

Our present queen, Elizabeth II, has ruled since 1952, when George VI (1936–1952), her father, died in his sleep. Princess Elizabeth was, at that moment, in South Africa. She was greeted as monarch upon her return to England. However, as with the other cases I have mentioned, her coronation came later.

The republican movement is being manipulative in suggesting we wait for the queen to die then move for a republic. There will be no interregnum after the queen’s death and the accession of the next king. From the moment Queen Elizabeth expires, the Prince of Wales will be – or as God ordains – King Charles III and from that point to move to divorce the king from his titles and authority will be an act of sedition as defined by law.

I venture to say that any talk of a republic even at this time sails dangerously close to that crime.