blogging it real

Lewis Holden, one of the more frequent and thoughtful contributors to debates on New Zealand's constitutional future, one I sincerely hope will not feature the Windsors or any other monarchy, has this to say in a recent blog:

[R]epublicanism in the New Zealand context should not be a reactionary path against the Monarch, nor is it specifically anti-royalist. It is possible to be a republican, respect the Queen and even take an Oath of allegiance to Her Majesty without undermining what you believe in. This may seem strange, but it is perfectly plausible.

Already one senses a little too much accommodation between the Holden Republic's Republicanism and the royalist nature of NZ.

Republicans believe in political equality and therefore view the Queen as their equal.

Well yes, they do, this is a very important point, but whether it means a republican can take an oath of allegiance to the Queen in good faith is a rather different matter. I would no more take such an oath to Betty Windsor than I would to any other individual. In a world of equals, it's preposterous.

This means that personal attacks on the Queen are unwarranted.

No, it means that personal attacks on the Queen are warranted under exactly the same circumstances that they are warranted for any other individual. e.g., if the Queen says or does something I think is stupid, I am justified in making a "personal attack" (by which I mean "an attack on the qualities of a person's argument or decision making abilities, etc."). More generally, red-blooded attacks on the monarchy and those who inhabit it can be effective rhetorical tools, sedition laws notwithstanding.

Republicans are critical of the institution of monarchy, but not monarchs themselves. This is in line with the Republican Movement principle that the debate should not be about personalities.

This is correct in the sense that there is a real danger in the debate being about personalities, one the Republican movement is always going to lose whilst Betty Windsor is on the throne. Many people seem convinced by her good deeds, although I'm not.

[...] The other prime example of this outside of the media was the Prime Minister’s refusal to allow a prayer before a state dinner with the Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, and flouting other Royal protocols. Monarchy or republic, such disingenuous dealings put New Zealand in a bad light internationally. And yet, the Prime Minister is quite happy to follow Muslim protocol when visiting Mosques or Maori protocol on Marae. Again, such hypocrisy does the republican movement damage.

At this point I must part ways with Lewis ... the supposed "flouting of other Royal protocols" presumably refers to the PM (a) wearing pants; (b) sitting down and (c) not allowing grace at a state dinner with the Queen ... held on Parliamentary premises to the best of my recollection. You know Parliament, the institution which sought for several centuries to establish its independence from said Monarchy, an independence sometimes paid for in blood. The dinner wasn't in Buckingham Palace for crying out loud. When I'm on someone else's turf, I don't insist on them following my protocols.

However, the tendancy of monarchists to micro-evaluate everything the Prime Minister does with respect to the monarchy is now taken to extremes. There are two examples of the desire for respect being taking to extremes: The bellyaching over the Prime Ministers’ late arrival to greet Prince Andrew because of that other (pressing) need to form a government is one such example.

Well that's slightly more like it, but again why on earth is Lewis accepting of the notion of "protocols" which apply only to the royals and to no one else in this supposed society of equals? As I've said earlier, after Betty was alleged to have suffered indignities on her trip to Canada:

One of the inherent problems of a monarchy is the notion that a small number of people, by virtue of their birth or marriage into one particular family, are somehow worthy of a different (higher) standard of treatment than everyone else. Even those persons who actually have a mandate from the people cannot hope to attain this.

For example, Betty was asked to give a "big smile" by a photographer: something most of us have experienced many times.

I went on to say:

Really, when the largest hardships in this woman's life are minor breaches of supposed protocols extended to her and no one else (like Paul Keating briefly putting his arm around her, or Helen Clark wearing pants not a skirt to a royal dinner) she hasn't got much to complain about.

My friend the Reluctant Leftist has more to say on this theme, and has confirmed my desire to refer to her most excellent majesty in the same way I would refer to any other English septuagenarian: by her actual name.