The numerous republicans who attended the recent dinner in honour of the Queen in Parliament House were showing good manners rather than hypocrisy. Their presence demonstrated that at least some republicans know when courtesy demands that they keep their constitutional convictions to themselves. It was those who stayed away (including, on my count, all but three Opposition frontbenchers) who failed to show the respect due to the Queen of Australia and demonstrated the studied indifference to our British heritage so characteristic of the republican movement.

Journalists and commentators don't normally feel the need to declare their personal values and allegiances. Even when everything they write and say proclaims commitment to a particular cause, they find accusations of partisanship an affront to their professionalism. Republicanism is the great exception to the media's desire to be seen as professionally detached. In 1999, every metropolitan paper editorialised in favour of the republican referendum except The West Australian, which wanted to elect a president, and The Australian Financial Review, which thought the case had not yet been made. As the recent royal visit made abundantly clear, declared republicans still can't take "no" for an answer.

TV clips showed a monarch who was busy, gracious, stylish and mostly surrounded by enthusiastic well-wishers. By contrast, editorial content was almost exclusively unfavourable comparisons with her first royal tour, supposition that this might be the last and anticipation of the "inevitable" republic. It focused on everything except what was happening.

The Herald's front-page story on the Queen's arrival carried the headline (presumably to stress her foreign-ness), "England, England, England, oi, oi, oi". Presumably because only 400 had turned up, it reported "there appeared to be no danger of the Queen being too well loved by her subjects" and proceeded to quote a series of advocates for a republic. The page one story in The Australian, headlined "Queen flies in as PM treated like royalty", managed to avoid quoting absent republicans but was clearly written to give the impression that the monarchy was passe. Only The Daily Telegraph, on page three, confined itself to describing the Queen's actual arrival.

The Herald's editorial stated that "a royal visit inevitably raises the issue of an Australian republic . an inevitable development, we believe". The Australian observed editorially that a republic "will happen". The Age editorialised: "We see no reason why the monarchy should outlive Queen Elizabeth." Only the Telegraph confined its editorial to the Queen's character and achievements.

As a class, it seems that journalists can scarcely contain their rage against a monarchy that represents the instinct for continuity and ceremony. Mike Carlton called monarchists "a dwindling band of laughing cavaliers". Mark Baker ( The Age's op-ed page editor, writing on his page) described expressions of affection as "tosh" and declared the Queen should be sent packing "on the next winged tram out of the MCG".

Even journalists writing sympathetic pieces invariably included the disclaimer that, of course, they are republicans. Michael Shmith, writing in The Age about the Queen's insights into the human condition and capacity to move with the times, felt compelled to refer (you guessed it) to the inevitable republic. In the Telegraph, Brendan Shanahan criticised the "snide commentary" against the Queen before declaring that Australia "will, and should, one day be a republic".

Why do journalists take this for granted when Australians in general do not? If polls are to be believed, a near majority of Australians is reconciled to the much-mocked-in-the-media prospect of King Charles. On almost no other issue is there such a gulf between an obsessive media and the population at large. Having once created an unreal royal fairytale, the media now seems determined to perpetuate an equally unreal and unfair royal nightmare. Generally speaking, journalists don't get it when it comes to the monarchy because they seem professionally incapable of appreciating that "the heart has reasons reason cannot know".

The recent royal tour again demonstrated that the monarchy is a grace note in our public life. In her Australian speeches, the Queen recognised Australia's growing stature in the world while noting that, even in this most generous of societies, more needed to be done for Aborigines and people with HIV/AIDS. Only someone with no point to prove or position to win could leave an audience of professional critics, such as that in Parliament House, feeling both proud of what has been achieved yet challenged to be our "best selves". As Kim Beazley's affectionate speech to the Parliament House dinner about "the ties that bind" (perhaps unwittingly) revealed, becoming a republic would be an act of self-inflicted cultural vandalism. It would be imperilling a friendship to prove a point.

Greg Sheridan, of The Australian, recently observed that Australians have been "getting over the post-colonial Oedipal hang-ups" that invariably attend a relationship like that with Britain. He's right about the general public but dead wrong about most of his fellow commentators.

Source

************************

For more postings from me, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Page. If this blog ceases to be updatable, or is difficult to access, there is a mirror site for it here which may work better. Email me (John Ray) here. RSS site feed: http://www.blognow.com.au/rss.php?u=libertas