British High Commission, Canberra, 13 May 1970
Confidential
The Monarchy in Australia
I have the honour to submit some reflections on the position of the Monarchy in Australia in the light of the recent visit to this country of The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne. In trying to look closely at the subject I have allowed myself a frankness which I hope will not be judged excessive.
2. Much of the memorandum about this which was enclosed in my letter of 26 January, 1967, to Sir Saville Garner (as he then was) is still valid, particularly its analysis of the factors underlying Australia’s attitude to the Monarchy, which remains substantially the same today. It was however written in the immediate aftermath of President Johnson’s successful visit to Australia in November 1966, and at the height of the political love affair between that President and the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Harold Holt. Since then the situation in regard to the Monarchy has changed appreciably for the better, on account both of subsequent political developments and of the marked success of the latest Royal Visit.
Underlying factors
3. Ever since the Commonwealth was founded at the beginning of the century Australia has been a nation in search of an identity. Until the beginning of the last war most inhabitants of this country did not regard themselves as primarily ‘Australian’ at all. They felt an intense, often parochial loyalty to their own State, town or district. Apart from that the majority regarded themselves with pride as ‘British’; while a sizeable minority, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, felt themselves to be ‘Irish’. The Monarchy was then seen as a symbol of Australia’s ‘British’ status. Its supporters supported it fervently on this account; its opponents opposed it equally fervently on the same ground. Traces of these attitudes still exist, though most of the fire has gone from the argument. As in Britain, openly expressed loyalty to the Monarchy is no longer universally fashionable, while on the other side the wrongs of Ireland are fading into history. The British/Irish antithesis, which 100 years ago provided the main fuel for Republicanism in Australia, is no longer a factor of political significance here—for the present at any rate.
4. The principal forces now operating against the Monarchy here are ones which have come into being since the war. First there is the rise of a genuine and specifically Australian nationalism. This process, which derives historically from the fall of Singapore, and from the consequent direct threat to the Australian mainland, was accentuated after the war by the inevitable development of independent Australian foreign and commercial policies. The great increase of travel both overseas and within Australia contributed markedly to the consciousness of an Australian identity. Subsequent political developments, notably Britain’s implementation of the Commonwealth Immigrants’ Act; British moves to join the European Common Market; Viet-Nam, where for the first time Australia was involved in fighting beside the United States and without Britain; Rhodesia, where many Australians felt an instinctive affinity with the white settlers; and finally Britain’s withdrawal of defence forces from South-East Asia—all hastened this process by suggesting that the metropolitan and the Australian ‘British’ were gradually drifting apart. There was a general feeling that geography had reasserted itself; that Britain was seeking its destiny off the coasts of Europe, and Australia in the Pacific and off the shores of South-East Asia. To many thinking Australians who recognised these developments the Monarchy seemed a survival of an earlier period which was hindering their country from working out its new independent future on this side of the globe. Such people took the view that the Monarchy was delaying for the Australian public the ‘shock of recognition’ of Australia’s position as an independent and dangerously isolated country on the fringes of Asia.
5. Secondly, in the period since the war the original overwhelmingly British stock has been diluted by the arrival in this country of about a million migrants from Europe. It is natural that on arrival these Europeans should have little knowledge of the British Monarchy and of The Queen to whom they have to swear allegiance before they can legally become Australian. Indeed it is often claimed that the European migrants regard the Monarchy either with indifference or with active hostility. I myself think too much has been made of this factor. None of the countries from which Australia’s European immigrants are drawn has either a popular Monarchy like the British one or indeed any individual or institution at the head of the State who could possibly inspire rival feelings of loyalty or affection. In fact a large number of the European migrants, though in the first generation they mostly retain a strong feeling of loyalty to their home countries, have come here because they actively dislike the present political system at home, e.g. in Hungary or Yugoslavia. To all of these people a solidly established constitutional Monarchy, even an alien one, could seem to offer advantages conspicuously lacking under the system prevalent in their home countries. In any case the children of European migrants soon become completely Australianised; the Australian education system takes care of that. Finally, the European migrants are balanced by a roughly equal number of migrants from the British Isles who have arrived over the same period. On top of the normal Monarchical feelings of the British these people find in Australia’s Monarchy something which bridges the gap separating them from their home country and reduces the initial pangs of homesickness. So it is certainly not true to say that the post-war ‘new Australians’ as a whole are a factor adverse to the Crown.
6. In fact active Republicanism in Australia has been centred in a small group of intellectuals and academics, mostly based in Sydney, but striving to influence the Press and the younger generation throughout the country. The main expression of this point of view has been found in the Sydney ‘Bulletin’, a weekly with Republican traditions going back 100 years; and in the writings of its editor, Mr. Donald Horne, and of the Adelaide publisher, Mr. Geoffrey Dutton (who like Sir Robert Helpmann1 —though in different guise—is an escapee from the ultra-traditionalist South Australian Establishment).
7. As against all this the underlying forces favourable to the Monarchy have been and remain considerable. In the less populous or more remote States, Western Australia and Tasmania in particular, loyalty to the Throne retains much of its pre-war fervour and is still taken as a matter of course. Throughout the armed forces loyalty is professed and is, I am sure, widely sincerely felt. In civilian life the Returned Servicemen’s League is an influential centre of Monarchist feeling. Older people, particularly those of British descent and Protestant religion, feel a strong and emotional attachment to the Throne.
8. An additional, and peculiarly Australian, consideration is the extent to which the Monarchy, through the state Governors, is felt to preserve the rights of the still technically ‘sovereign’ states. For such champions of states’ rights as Sir Henry Bolte in Victoria and Mr. Charles Court2 in Western Australia, the Crown, and the states’ direct access to it, are viewed not only in terms of loyalty and sentiment but hard-headedly as a counterpoise to the increasing powers of the Commonwealth. The Crown gives the states an assurance and a confidence which they would certainly not feel under an Australian republic.
9. Quite apart from Monarchy as an institution Australians have always had a warm and friendly interest in members of the Royal Family, collectively and as individuals. The television programmes, the women’s pages and magazines have always been as full of reports of the Royal happenings as their equivalents in Britain.
10. Finally, there is an important negative factor operating in favour of the Monarchy. Under an Australian republic the choice of a President would be peculiarly difficult. The Australians pride themselves on being no respecters of persons and, like charity, their disrespect begins at home. The Australians’ irreverent attitude to their own politicians suggests that it would be difficult for them to accept one as a President. (Lord Casey’s remarkable success as Governor General argues against this thesis, but he was and is a very exceptional Australian by any standard.) The Monarchy as an element of dignity, stability and continuity would be very hard indeed to replace.
11. In summing up these underlying factors as I saw them in 1967 I concluded with a quotation from Peter Coleman, who then edited the Sydney ‘Bulletin’, to the effect that the republican/ Monarchist debate was unlikely to become a real issue until the decision that would have to be made seemed an obvious and natural one. The implication was that the debate was irrelevant to Australia’s situation and should not be pursued at that time—a view closely resembling that of Mr. Trudeau, as quoted in Sir Colin Crowe’s3 despatch of 24 February last: unenthusiastic acceptance of an existing situation.
Latest developments and their effects
12. Developments in the last three years have modified the picture set out in the previous paragraphs.
13. In the first place Britain’s recovery since the nadir winter of 1967–68 has had a marked and welcome effect in Australia. In constitutional theory Australia’s relations with Britain are distinct from her relations with the Crown. In practice it is impossible to disentangle the two, and inevitably the one reacts closely on the other. The recent British comeback in Australia, on which I shall be reporting in a later despatch,4 has helped the cause of Monarchy; and now the resurgence of Monarchist feeling is helping the cause of Britain. (As regards Anglo-Australian relations, we cannot afford over-confidence as they could well be adversely affected again by future developments such as our entry into the Common Market—or indeed if events in Northern Ireland should lead to a clash between London and Dublin.) At the same time the age-old Australian tendency to go agin the Government has, since the resignation of Sir Robert Menzies, been operating against the United States more than against Britain and the Monarchy. While Australians are still as conscious as ever of their dependence on United States protection for their survival, the Viet-Nam issue has gone sour here since it gave Mr. Holt his landslide electoral victory in 1966; and his cry of ‘All the way with LBJ’ was highly damaging to him politically. Under Sir Robert Menzies the Monarchy and other British institutions had become boring to many Australians. The fact that they are now back in fashion again is partly due to a reaction against the pro-American enthusiasm of Mr. Holt.
14. More positively, the success of the Prince of Wales’ stay at Timbertop, and the obvious affection shown by His Royal Highness for Australia since then, have provided a new link between the Crown and the generation of Australians now growing up. In fact Australians as a whole have developed a possessive feeling towards the Heir to the Throne.
15. Thirdly it is true that the new Australian nationalism referred to in paragraph 4 above has now achieved its personification and its apogee under the Prime Ministership of Mr. Gorton. When he first came to power early in 1968 there were some who believed that Mr. Gorton’s nationalism, and his general intolerance of tradition, were disposing him unfavourably towards the Crown. It was thought that he might intend to steer this country in the same direction as Canada, towards a situation where the Monarchy would appear more and more remote. The then Governor-General for his part took these anxieties seriously enough to put them frankly to Mr. Gorton. In reply the Prime Minister expressed astonishment at the suggestion. At the same time Mr. Gorton seems to have understood from Lord Casey’s approach that his enthusiasm for the Monarchy might be under question; and he took the opportunity of his visit to London in January 1969, for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, to set all anxieties on this subject at rest and to make clear his unqualified attachment to the Crown. In fact during this visit the Prime Minister was paid special attention and given particular opportunities for getting to know the Royal Family; and he and Mrs Gorton (an American from Maine who had previously thought of the British Crown in terms of George III) returned from this visit in a mood of enthusiasm not only for the Monarchy but for Britain and its institutions generally.
16. Finally there is the decisive success achieved by this year’s Royal Visit. As already reported, there were several elements in this success. First the presence of the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne developed that link between the Crown and the young generation here which, before Prince Charles’ arrival at Timbertop, had been notably lacking and which is of such vital importance for the future. At the same time the visit had a family character which gave it an especial appeal to the Australian public. But above all the whole tour was a personal triumph for The Queen. Her Majesty’s two previous visits, in 1954 and 1963, were organised on a much more formal basis and left the Sovereign still a remote figure in Australian eyes. The latest visit, with its relative lack of protocol, and in particular with the practice of Royal walks along the streets of Australian cities, enabled the people of Australia to get a much closer view of the Royal Family and (if I may say so with great respect) to appreciate The Queen’s gaiety and capacity for enjoyment which had previously been concealed from them. At the same time, the Royal walks displayed to maximum advantage the unique trump card of the British Monarchy: the fact that the Sovereign and the Royal Family can circulate in crowded cities virtually unprotected. The contrast with President Johnson’s trotting secret-servicemen, and the bullhorn voice from the armoured limousine, was not lost on the Australian public.
17. As reported by separate despatch the Press, television and radio gave the visit a very full coverage and comments were almost uniformly favourable. ‘The Bulletin’ (paragraph 6 above) would clearly have liked to criticise the Royal Family but did not dare to—the editor, Mr. Horne, stands too much in awe of his proprietor, the true-blue Sir Frank Packer.
18. The functions in Canberra seemed to me, despite the freezing weather, to go with a great deal of warmth and swing. In particular the Government’s reception in the great hall of Parliament House had a gaiety and jolliness which, so I am told, were lacking from such occasions on previous visits by the Queen. The truth is that at that time Sir Robert Menzies dominated the political scene and gave the impression of owning the Monarchy as he owned Parliament and Canberra and everything else. Some of his political unpopularity, for instance with the Press and with the young, certainly rubbed off on the Monarchy because of his close identification with it. Mr. Gorton, by contrast, has a much less overpowering personality; and, as no one would think of him as a natural traditionalist, he is not associated with the Crown in anything like the same way. The result was a greater sense of ease and freedom in the Canberra celebrations.
19. Incidentally Sir Robert Menzies, four years after his retirement, is now enjoying something of a comeback in terms of popularity and favour. Driving with him through Canberra in the wake of the Royal procession I found that he was immediately recognised and warmly cheered. When he stopped at a crossroads a woman with a baby in her arms came up, put her head through the window and said to him in broadest Australian: ‘Good on yer, yer as nice as Their Madgies’. Although this was not the most correct way of referring to the Royal Family, I thought the compliment significant, as well as charming, in that, although addressed to Sir Robert, it also related by implication to the Royal Family and set them up as a standard of niceness. ‘Their Madgies’: if this expression—familiar, affectionate, diminutive—if this is the vox populi , then there is not much wrong with the Australian Monarchy.
20. As representative of the British Government I naturally took very much of a back seat during the proceedings. In fact I believe that, to the great majority of Australians, the question whether The Queen comes here as Queen of Britain or Queen of Australia is academic and irrelevant. To them, ‘The Queen’ means something wider than either of these concepts. It is as if Her Majesty were seen not as the Sovereign of any particular Kingdom but as a figure in the same category as the Pope, embodying a certain outlook and way of life and therefore commanding allegiance from the faithful. At the same time, in a world which is increasingly hungry for glamour and romance, the Sovereign and the Crown represent a genuine poetry which is rare indeed, and recognisably all the more precious by contrast with the faux bons offered by show business and the advertising industry. It seems from this point of view that our Monarchy has a quality which transcends frontiers and attains a certain universality. I believe that in the modem world Disraeli was the first to understand this truth, and that when he referred to Queen Victoria as ‘The Faery’, he was being more hard-headed and less hyperbolical than history has generally assumed. It was the particular success of the recent tour that it enabled Australians to experience the numinous and mystical quality of the Crown while at the same time bringing them into warm and human contact with The Queen and her Family.
Reflections about the future
21. It is no part of my duties to submit recommendations about the future relationship of Australia and the Crown. On the other hand, Australia’s dealings with the Monarchy and with Britain are so closely intertwined that perhaps I may be forgiven for submitting certain reflections which have occurred to me as a spectator of events here over the past five years.
22. The success of the latest tour suggests, paradoxically, that even for a thoroughly modern and developed democratic country like Australia there may be positive advantages in a Monarchy where the Sovereign normally lives somewhere else. Such a system means that the visits of the Monarch, when they occur, have greater impact than those of a resident Sovereign. They must necessarily be accompanied by much pomp and pageantry; but there is no reason why this should not be humanised by informality, as was so successfully done on the recent tour. In between visits the absence of the Sovereign prevents the growth of familiarity and preempts the inborn Australian propensity to criticise authority. On the contrary, distance heightens the mystery surrounding the Monarch’s person and invests it with an emotional quality: ‘Will ye no come back again?’ It is of course an essential condition of such an arrangement that it should give the Australians no feeling of inferiority and no reminder of their provincial past. In fact the wholehearted way in which, on this Visit, the Queen and the Royal Family entered into the celebrations of Australia’s Bicentenary was such as to make the concept of the Monarchy attractive to even the most detached migrant from Central or Southern Europe. (In a characteristically self-centred Sydney manner Captain Cook was feted, not as an Englishman but as the man who discovered Botany Bay; so far as the celebrations went, he might just as well have been Bougainville5 or La Perouse.)6 At the same time Australians are feeling more and more lonely in an increasingly dangerous world. The consciousness of sharing a Sovereign with Britain and other Commonwealth countries gives them a feeling of reassurance and of ‘belonging’ which they could never derive from, say, the President of an Australian republic. In fact, by a typical British constitutional fluke, history may have provided the Australians with the form of Monarchy which best suits their special qualities and situation.
23. Public opinion here now agrees that The Queen should no longer be expected to visit the whole of Australia at one time as on previous occasions. But, accepting that the Sovereign will in future only visit part of the country, Australians would certainly feel that an average of seven years was rather a long interval to leave between visits. In the meantime of course it is of the greatest value if the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the Royal Family can continue to come to Australia frequently on working visits combined with the maximum of sport and recreation.
24. One of the main arguments of Republicanism in the past has been the claim that at present Australia lacks an effective Head of State and that when for example the President or King of a South-East Asian country pays a State Visit here, there is nobody to pay a visit in return. This is true in the sense that if Her Majesty visited, say Bangkok, nobody would think of Her then as Queen of Australia, or as anything but Queen of Britain. Nevertheless, it would I believe be perfectly correct constitutionally for the Governor-General as the Sovereign’s representative to pay State Visits to other countries in the area. This would I think also be politically advantageous to Australia. It would certainly knock away one of Republicanism’s most useful props. I shall be reporting further on this aspect in due course.
25. I am sending copies of this despatch to the High Commissioners in Wellington and Ottawa and to the Political Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief, Far East.
1 Actor, dancer, producer and choreographer; named Australian of the Year in 1966.
2 Minister for Industrial Development, Western Australia, 1959–71; Premier from 1974.
3 British High Commissioner, Ottawa, from 1968.
4 This is a reference to Johnston’s valedictory despatch of 2 April 1971, for which see, in the context of defence policy, Document 62, note 4. In this despatch, Johnston attributed the British revival in Australia to the change of government in the UK—’There is no need for me to emphasize how relieved I am not to find that the recent unnecessary downgrading of Britain’s role in the world is over’—and events in Australia itself. To the extent Menzies had courted unpopularity at home after sixteen years of uninterrupted power, Johnston argued that much of this inevitably ‘rubbed off on Britain’ because Menzies had been so obviously ‘British to the bootheels’. This was symptomatic of Australia’s ‘great national character for knocking’. Now, because of Vietnam, the US had replaced Britain as the target of criticism and cynicism. But besides anti-Americanism, a number of other factors were beginning to work in Britain’s favour. ‘In a typically Australian way sport proved more important than politics or economics. Our World Cup [soccer] victory in 1966, together with the round-the-world cruises of Sir Francis Chichester and Sir Alec Rose and Mr. Heath’s win in the Hobart Race of 1970, did much to convince the Australians that “the Poms had come good again”. This effect of course has been authoritatively reinforced by our victory in the Test Match cricket series of 1971.’ The most important event according to the High Commissioner was the ‘triumphant Royal Visit of April, 1970’. His discussion of the Monarchy in his valedictory despatch repeated the arguments reproduced here in his May 1970 despatch (UKNA: FCO 24/1072, despatch, Johnston to Douglas-Home, 2 April 1971).
5 Louis Antoine de Bougainville (1792–1811 ), French navigator and military commander. Bougainville’s name is given to the largest of the Solomon Islands, and to the strait which divides it from the island of Choiseul.
6 The La Perouse peninsula is the northern headland of Botany Bay. La Perouse is also a suburb of southeast Sydney. Both are named after the French navigator Jean-Francois de Galaup, comte de La Perouse(1741–88), who landed on the northern shore of Botany Bay on 26 January 1788. His arrival coincided with the arrival of the British under Captain Arthur Phillip (1738–1814), who landed on the southern shore of Botany Bay on the same day.
[UKNA: FCO 24/715]