PAST YEARS FROM 2000

(includes Papers delivered to meetings in the House of Lords by Philip Benwell MBE)

The day after my last Christmas message was broadcast, the world experienced one of the worst natural disasters ever recorded. The devastating tsunami struck countries around the Indian Ocean causing death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. This was followed by a number of vicious hurricanes across the Caribbean and the inundation of the city of New Orleans. Then in the autumn came the massive earthquake in Pakistan and India. This series of dreadful events has brought loss and suffering to so many people - and their families and friends - not only in the countries directly affected, but here in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth.

As if these disasters were not bad enough, I have sometimes thought that humanity seemed to have turned on itself - with wars, civil disturbances and acts of brutal terrorism. In this country many people's lives were totally changed by the London bombings in July.

This Christmas my thoughts are especially with those everywhere who are grieving the loss of loved ones during what for so many has been such a terrible year.

These natural and human tragedies provided the headline news; they also provoked a quite remarkable humanitarian response. People of compassion all over the world responded with immediate practical and financial help.

There may be an instinct in all of us to help those in distress, but in many cases I believe this has been inspired by religious faith. Christianity is not the only religion to teach its followers to help others and to treat your neighbour as you would want to be treated yourself.

It has been clear that in the course of this year relief workers and financial support have come from members of every faith and from every corner of the world.

There is no doubt that the process of rebuilding these communities is far from over and there will be fresh calls on our commitment to help in the future. Certainly the need for selflessness and generosity in the face of hardship is nothing new. The veterans of the Second World War whom we honoured last summer can tell us how so often, in moments of greatest trial, those around them seemed able to draw on some inner strength to find courage and compassion. We see this today in the way that young men and women are calmly serving our country around the world often in great danger.

This last year has reminded us that this world is not always an easy or a safe place to live in, but it is the only place we have. I believe also that it has shown us all how our faith - whatever our religion - can inspire us to work together in friendship and peace for the sake of our own and future generations.

For Christians this festival of Christmas is the time to remember the birth of the one we call "the Prince of Peace" and our source of "light and life" in both good times and bad. It is not always easy to accept his teaching, but I have no doubt that the New Year will be all the better if we do but try.

I hope you will all have a very happy Christmas this year and that you go into the New Year with renewed hope and confidence.

Waverley Council’s decision, for whatever reason, not to erect a flagpole and fly Australian Flags over the Bondi Beach Pavilion is yet another example of the policy of ‘political correctness’ which is a misnomer for the enforced refutation of traditional values.

This policy is prevalent throughout the European Union. In England itself, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has advised that one may celebrate the Patron Saint St. George’s Day provided such celebrations “do not interfere with the sensitivities of any ethnic minority”!

I believe that the refusal by media and politicians to accept the verdict of the people at the 1999 Referendum by thereafter continually undermining the Constitution and legislating against allegiance to the Crown has greatly contributed to the antipathy we see in today’s society. Indeed, when a politician openly admits perjuring himself when taking the Oath (NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard 07/04/2005) how can one expect younger generations to have any sort of regard for Government?

Federal Attorney General Ruddock’s alleged comment published in The Australian of the 8th December 2005: “In other words there is no offence of bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt. There is no offence of urging disaffection against the Constitution or either House of Parliament” is unhelpful to say the least, as well, as I am advised, being wrong in law.

In this our first letter for 2006, I wish you a very happy and prosperous and ‘Right Royal’ New Year. May I also thank all those who had sent Christmas cards and messages of encouragement which have been so very much appreciated.

Amongst the many Royal and Vice-Regal cards received was one from the Household of TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall sending “best wishes to all” For some time I have been urging a visit by HRH Prince William of Wales and am advised “Prince William is certainly keen to come to Australia and, as you say, it is just a question of finding the time. The problem is that he is due to start in the Army in the New Year which will be, I am afraid, a fairly full time process throughout 2006”.

The next Royal Visit will therefore be that of The Queen who has been invited to open the Commonwealth Games on the 15th March 2006. Running for twelve days, some 4,500 athletes from 72 countries will participate in 16 sporting activities. The ceremony is expected to be at Melbourne’s Cricket Ground, which, incidentally, was the same venue for the Opening of the 1956 Games by The Duke of Edinburgh. I am in touch with Loyalist organizations to disseminate information on the Royal itinerary and to do everything we can to ensure that there will be large crowds to greet Her Majesty .

The recent Tour of Australia by Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Serbia and Montenegro, which we also had the honour of assisting was also a tremendous success. The Crown Prince is a descendant of Queen Victoria, a God-Son of our Queen and a cousin of the Duke of Edinburgh. Members may recall that an earlier Duke of Edinburgh, the fourth child and second son of Queen Victoria was the first member of the Royal Family to visit Australia and the first to be subjected to an assassination attempt when he was seriously shot at Clontarf near Sydney in 1868 by the Irish terrorist James O’Farrell. Fortunately we treated his descendant, the Crown Prince, in a far more dignified manner. A Gala Dinner in honour of Their Royal Highnesses was held at the Olympic Stadium with over a thousand people present including the Premier himself and a Representative of the Prime Minister. After being received at Government House, Her Excellency, Professor Bashir, later took Princess Katherine on a tour of Sydney hospitals.

April the 21st 2006 is the 80th Birthday of our Queen. In Sydney the League is organizing, on that day, a Christian Service of Prayer followed by a Luncheon, both at Parliament House. Details of other activities in honour of Her Majesty’s birthday will be advised by our State Branches direct to their members.

In 2005, the League and I personally survived a vicious public attempt to destroy us. Our integrity was the subject of continual media expositions and our members were publicly encouraged to join ‘a rival organization. In November 2005, elections within the National Council were held and I am pleased to be able to advise that the following were elected to office:

Although it is not the business of anyone other than members of the League, our National Accounts for 2004/5 were finalized months ago and have been presented to the National Council for audit. These indicate an income from functions, memberships, subscriptions and contributions of $88,378.78 and an expenditure of $101,878.10 which include administration, communications and contributions towards lease and office costs for the period, but no salaries whatsoever. The loss of $13,499.32 has been borne by me as have losses of previous years! There are rumours that the League enjoys the financial support of wealthy benefactors, but I am very much afraid that since the Referendum, I personally remain the largest single provider of funds through sales of my book and papers. To further save on costs, all printing and art layout is done by me as is the management of our web-site (www.monarchist.org.au).

Some, no doubt, will be critical that our activities have extended far beyond our financial resources over past years and in many ways this criticism is justified but in our defence, are we not engaged in the vitally important mission of retaining The Crown in our Constitution and should we fail, will we not lose our democracy as we know it?

To give you some idea of the magnitude of our operations, some 25,000 letters were written plus countless emails, phone calls and faxes during 2004/5 alone! In fact, the League in many ways has replaced the position once held by the Government in supplying prints of The Queen to organizations. Whilst this can cost us as much as a thousand dollars each year, it is heartening to be approached by so many, particularly by pupils and Public Officials requesting prints for their schools and pictures of the Queen of Australia for their Government offices!

Our educational work amongst students continues as does our library service to media, who often contact us for information and verification of facts on the Constitution and the Monarchy. I am often called upon to travel around Australia to address meetings by invitation and would be more than pleased to speak to any group, however small, in any part of the country, dependent of course on cost, travel facilities and time.

We are already achieving a tremendous amount, but there is so much more to be done and we are restricted only by a lack of positive funding. If we were to have a ‘wish list’ for 2006, it would go something like:

1) Enough monies to establish a legal consortium whose purpose would be to challenge, in the Courts, Government attempts to remove allegiance and The Crown and to lodge legal complaints over activities by republicans which may have the effect of creating insurrection against the Sovereign, including the outrageous comments allegedly made by Federal Attorney Ruddock in an article published in The Australian on the 8th December 2005: “In other words there is no offence of bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt. There is no offence of urging disaffection against the Constitution or either house of parliament.”

2) Sufficient funds to produce an educational CD or DVD on our Constitutional Monarchy as a ‘freebie’ with a suitably appropriate magazine or newspaper.

3) Above all, sufficient financial resources to establish an investment trust to secure the future of the League and its Library.

It is mooted that republicans intend to go out onto the streets to promote their ‘Mate for a Head of State’ campaign. We sincerely trust that, in view of the recent riots in Sydney, they will desist from promoting agitation against The Crown.

Perhaps this ‘wish list’ is too wishful when considering the latest poll of members on whether we should pursue the feasibility of legal action over the intended removal by the NSW (and other) State Governments of the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen which resulted in only 158 members responding and, whilst all but four were in favour, it is disappointing that less than half of our target fund of $10,000 was raised.

This year of 2006 will be a catalyst for the League, for we cannot continue as we are. Either we must drastically reduce our activities on behalf of The Crown or else somehow increase our funding.

May I therefore urge you to give serious thought to these matters and to do everything you can to ensure the continuation of our valuable, and may I say essential, work to retain the democracy of this our great Nation.

The Republican’s new slogan: ‘A mate for a Head of State’ to be launched today in Sydney does nothing whatsoever to enhance the Republican cause.

A Head of State is the person in whom the constitutional authority of the nation is vested. He or she is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and is responsible for the lawful well-being of the people.

Within the Westminster System, be it a Constitutional Monarchy or a Republic, the Head of State must stand above politics and neither friend nor foe should influence his or her duties in any way whatsoever. There are no examples internationally of where ‘A mate for a Head of State’ meets this criteria.

In Australia, the term ‘mate’ has been reduced to nothing more than a meaningless generalization, just as ‘buddy’ has in the USA. To facilitate votes, a politician may become everyone’s ‘mate’ for a short period and perhaps the republicans really do want to cheapen our Constitution with the hypocritical indignity of a ‘mate’s rate’ sort of Head of State. Fortunately our Constitution ensures the ultimate decision remains firmly in the hands of the people and not our politicians and it may well be that by revealing their real perceptions for a Head of State, republicans may have finally ‘check-mated’ themselves!

The Adelaide Advertiser of Monday the 16^th January 2006 carried an article by Senator Natasha Stott Despoja extolling her vision for a future Australian Republic alongside a photo depicting a picture of The Queen being ripped apart, albeit it apparently not by her.

Ms Stott Despoja writes: “The debate about an Australian republic is about more than the principles of democracy. It is about who we are as Australians.” However debate on a republic is totally flawed if it is based on an irrational hatred of The Queen as the aggressive act of tearing apart an image of the Sovereign undoubtedly is!

On Australia Day we commemorate several occasions, firstly, the landing of Captain Arthur Phillip at Camp Cove on 21 January 1788 and the beginning of British settlement in this country. More importantly, the Day also honours those great Australians of the late Nineteenth Century who drafted and produced that magnificent document which is the Australian Constitution through which Australia became a Sovereign Nation in its own right. It is thus that Australia Day also celebrates the federating of the six Colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia.

The fact that we are constituted ‘Under The Crown’ is totally of our own choosing, and following the 1999 Referendum, is actually by a vote of the people!

It is therefore somewhat bizarre that republicans, most of whom would not be here had there not been a ‘settlement’, have chosen Australia Day to agitate for the abolishment of the very Constitution which has underwritten our democracy and our freedoms for over a hundred years, without having the least idea of what to replace it with.

This month’s Newspoll of 1200 interviews clearly shows that the majority of the Australian people are quite content with our current constitutional system. It is understandable that there is an uncertainly of what will follow on the Queen’s passing, but the Australian people are not fools and realize that it is the system which matters, not the emotive responses of sections of the media, some of whom openly admit that their antagonism is due to the fact that ‘Dianna sold magazines whereas Camilla does not’.

The Prince of Wales is the hardest working Royal of all time. His personal contribution in time and fund-raising is unsurpassed. His efforts in this and other directions are largely unheard of simply because the media does not report on them.

Clarence House has made it quite clear that when Prince Charles ascends to the throne as King, his wife will be termed the Princess Consort and will not be called Queen. However this concern about titles is immaterial as the Duchess of Cornwall will hold no constitutional power in this country whatsoever. As embodied in the Australian Constitution, only one Royal, and that is the reigning Sovereign, may represent and uphold the will of the people and that, always with their consent. If this were not so, how else could it be that the people six years ago were called upon to vote on whether or not to retain our Constitutional Monarchy!

It was only six years ago that the Australian people exercised their right to determine the Constitutional Head of Australia, and responded overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the current system that has served our great country extremely well. Let us not tarnish the meaning and spirit of Australia Day with a concept and ideology that is so un-Australian and contrary to the expressed wishes of the majority of Australians.

Talk to the Australian Monarchist League by Blythe Stason, Professor Emeritius University of Illinois.

I Introduction. I shall undertake today a brief comparison of some equivalent sections of our respective Constitutions, within a very spare framework that includes mention of some of the greatly differing contemporary political circumstances that surrounded each of our countries at the time of Constitutional adoption. ………………..

One circumstance regarding constitutional adoption is this: By an Act of 1900, that became effective on 1 January, 1901, the British Parliament simultaneously changed a group of British Colonies into The Commonwealth of Australia and established the Constitution of Australia – the law we will discuss today – as its governing document.

I shall comment, in no particular order, upon some other circumstances of adoption, importance and some provisions of , the Constitutions of Australia and the United States.

To begin with, let me quote from two recent Australian sources of rather different import, as follows:

1. In the (Australian) Courier-Mail, of 28 and 29 January of this year, it was said: “…We (Australians) fought furiously over this right (to have an Australian as Head of State). Who is to choose? …Who is going to tell the Queen? Yet, today, the republic issue is, if not dead, in a coma. Australians instead get excited over who is lugging the Queens baton around the country in Melbourne’s Commonwealth Games relay. …”

2. In his Foreword for a recent excellent, scholarly, book on the Australian Constitution, former Australian High Court Chief Justice Sir Gerard Brennan has said: ‘The law of the Constitution underpins the entirety of our legal system. It distributes the power to make the laws by which \we are governed and it prescribes the organs of government by which those laws are implemented and enforced. …Constitutional law is a part of the common law, for it is the common law which (the late) former Australian High Court Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon identified as “the anterior law providing the sources of juristic authority for our institutions” ‘. Justice Brennan continues: ‘It is the common law which creates the concepts and general functions of a parliament, an executive and a judiciary which the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Constitutions of the several States take and mould.’

These considerations of common law and Constitutional law noted above by Brennan apply, with equal force and with but modest differences in detail, in both of our countries. In each, then, the National Constitution is the indispensable engine that drives the mechanisms of government without which there would be not government, but chaos.

In each of our Constitutions, these mechanisms are three in number, and serve the following purposes: The legislature, bipartite in structure, ensures the presence and functions of all laws apart from the Constitution; the executive, under which these laws are allowed or required to govern all public matters, and the judiciary, which, often under very difficult interpretational and other circumstances, tells the government and all the rest of us what these laws signify and how each of them should be enforced.

Of these tasks, interpretation may well be the most demanding. Therefore, the importance of providing a competent, superior, judiciary is clear.

It is widely known that our two Governments operate on very similar principles, and that that circumstances is especially true regarding legal matters. The structure of each of these is established by and conducted under the terms of its Constitution. Each government is tripartite, having a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. Each of our legislatures has an upper house, called a ‘Senate’

Most important of all. Each country is governed by and under the strong, benevolent and pervasive traditions of the English common law, upon which each of our respective Constitutions is soundly and irrevocably based.

We do have some differences of government and of law; these differences are not fundamental. The differences between the circumstances surrounding the births of our respective countries, however, are important. Some of these are as follows: The Commonwealth of Australia and its Constitution came into the world but a little over a century ago, and that event was rather peaceful. The nation then your Mother Country was well aware of the impending separation and was more or less reconciled to its inevitability. The United States of America, on the other hand, was launched 220 years ago amid the roar of hostile British gunfire (some of which happened in the village of Concord, Massachusetts, about two miles from my brother Bill’s doorstep in the neighbouring village of Lincoln). Further, that event occurred in the looming prospect of France’s first modern-day revolution. Its birth was given substantial midwifery (including thousands of French soldiers, further thousands of Charleville muskets for our boys in blue and a fleet of thirty-six warships under command of Admiral de Grasse.) by a country that then was overtly inimical to the Britain that then was our Mother Country.

Then, too, the era was heated politically for other but related reasons: Shortly after our Independence was achieved, our former mother country, and all of Europe, were terrified by the all-too-evident abilities, and the military successes, of an Italian-speaking artillery expert and military adventurer who entered the world in the Mediterranean island of Corsica, and vigorously entered military and other politics under the frenchified version of his name: Napoleon Bonaparte. The world then was very uncertain and dangerous for the infant United States, even after independence and at a range from Britain and Europe of three thousand-odd miles of open waters - that was liberally patrolled not only by foreign warships but also by those pirates that operated under various letters of marque as ‘privateers’.

There was also another difference between the circumstances of the new United States of America of 1790 or so, and those of the new Commonwealth of Australia of 1901, that made essential for the former a complete break from the British Empire: The absolute necessity for what we did not have when Independence was achieved in 1787: A strong and thoroughly reliable national government. When Independence was achieved our government was the “Continental Congress”. Created in haste a decade earlier to enable us to fight as a nation for freedom against Britain, it was weak, ill conceived and thoroughly unreliable, it was unsatisfactory in every way. We could not in any important respect build our nation upon our existing administrative structure. The whole thing had to be scrubbed and rebuilt from scratch. The world was full of our enemies, actual or prospective. We could not afford a single failure. Our new structure of government had, therefore, to be made as strong, spare, tightly-worded, tested as to both method and mechanism against wisdom of the past, and free of misunderstandings and pitfalls, as our small but very strong, able and dedicated ‘Founding Fathers’ could make it. We could not have any long, loosely-worded sentences in our foundation document that could be misinterpreted, misapplied or ignored. We could take no chances at all.

By comparison Australia, at the time of its independence in 1901, found itself in rather different circumstances. Its surrounding waters were not full of sharks; its ‘Mother Country’

The Australian Monarchist League has always upheld the right of Australians to criticize our leaders and even the right of republicans to challenge our system of Government; for to do so is not simply a privilege allowed to us all but is a Constitutional right of every Australian citizen, even to the extent of voting on whether or not to retain the Monarchy!

Sometimes this ‘freedom’ implicit within our Constitution seems to encourage what may seem to be the unpalatable, but in the words of George Orwell after whose book 1984 our modern society seems to be modelled, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

The media would have us believe that they are the guardians of the freedoms of the people. At one time this could well have been true, but no longer. Today these scribblers seek to impose their opinions on an increasingly conditioned readership, as exampled by the recent barrage of mumbo jumbo given to the new Republican jingle: ‘mate for a Head of State’, the specious slogan: ‘Australian for a Head of State’ having seemingly been discarded as no doubt will this irreverent cliché as it fails to capture any public interest despite a media blitz totally out of proportion to the event.

What we need in a Head of State is not a ‘mate’ but rather a person who is above politics, a person who cannot be pressured, bought or even influenced. A person we can all look up to and feel proud to represent us overseas. Indeed a person like Major-General Michael Jeffery, our Australian Governor-General.

The Sydney Morning Herald in its Editorial for Australia Day on 26 January stated: “The Herald campaigned for the republic before the referendum” and continues: “it is time to resuscitate the issue, to learn the lessons of the Referendum’s defeat, and to begin once again the debate on the shape of a new constitution to found an Australian republic.” What this paper and others will never accept as they continue to so disruptively tear down the very fabric of our Constitutional Monarchy is that the rejection of a republic by the people was also a rebuff to these attempts by the Fourth Estate to impose their prejudices and misinformation upon the population at large.

It is hardly surprising that so many new and young Australians have no sense of patriotism when our Constitution and The Crown are continually denigrated by media and politicians alike! Indeed, how can a government expect public respect for the institution of Parliament when it is represented by a politician who admits to committing perjury when taking the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen. A Sovereign who indirectly received far more votes than any political party has ever achieved!

The purpose of my writing the book ‘In Defence of Australia's Constitutional Monarchy’ was to ensure that the research and the thinking that went into the Referendum debate was retained for the future. However, the continued promotion of a republic requires us to refute these spurious arguments with their often malicious comments, while just as importantly, to continue to enlighten as many people as possible on the benefits of our constitutional arrangements.

Whilst my U.S. publishers have expressed an interest in contracting my new book ‘Australia’s Constitutional Crown’ for their University clients, this would mean that the high cost of a hardcover reference publication would be far beyond the reach of most League members and supporters. To overcome this obstacle I am also preparing the same work as a series of Papers which can be produced in-house at $10 per copy. Orders for the first Paper can be made via email at secretary@monarchist.org.au.

To ensure the financial future of the League, a Funding Committee is being established. If you feel that you can contribute any expertise in this area or in the fields of law, accounting or banking, please let us know as soon as possible. As I mentioned in my letter of last month, we are facing a major decision this year as to our future activities. We urgently need your support to continue as an active and virulent organisation dedicated to preserving the Australian Constitution, and to protect those rights, traditions and values it embodies on behalf of all Australians.

THE VISIT OF THE QUEEN:

The Queen will arrive in Australia open the 12th March 2006 and will depart on the 16^th March for a two day Visit to Singapore.

During the four day stay, The Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, will visit the ACT, New South Wales and, of course Victoria, where Her Majesty will open the Commonwealth Games on the 15th March.

Once we have more detailed information, which for security reasons, will not be until just prior to the Visit, I will forward this to you.

The Protocol Departments will advise us where they would prefer people to gather. Again care must be taken for security reasons.

The Earl of Wessex will be in Australia for the closing ceremony of the Games. His Royal Highness will be involved in other activities mainly associated with the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme during his Visit.

With regards

Philip Benwell
National Chairman
Australian Monarchist League

There is a movement intent on destabilizing the Constitution of Australia by inferring, as copied from a circulatory email:

1. That the ‘Queen of Australia’ is a person unknown under the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) and legislation assented to in the name of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or the “Queen of Australia” is invalid in both British domestic and international law.

2. That the Queen to whom power is given by the provisions of the ‘Australian’ Constitution, being the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, is an Office that has not existed since at the very latest the 1927 Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act (U.K.).

3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has never held sovereignty over the Commonwealth of Australia, as a colony, a colonial federation or as an independent sovereign nation.

4. That the Australian people became a free, independent and sovereign nation on the 1st of October, 1919 and that as a consequence Australia’s politicians could not continue to use British colonial law to govern the Australian people, just as the Americans didn’t use British colonial legislation after 1776.

5. That William Morris Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook acting on behalf of the Australian people signed the Peace Treaty of Versailles on 28th June 1919 as a belligerent nation in its own right – the Commonwealth of Australia’s first act as an independent sovereign nation - and that international law acknowledges this document as the legal instrument that transferred sovereignty from King George V of the United Kingdom to the Australian People. This was confirmed in Hansard 10th September, 1919 – 1st October, 1919.

6. That the 1923 Imperial Conference held in London declared that the “Dominions”, of which Australia was one, were autonomous nations with the power to enter into international treaties.

7. That the former political system in use in Australia with assent for all bills of law signed by the Governor General or State Governors who were the representatives of Queen Elizabeth II or the “Queen of Australia” is quite impossible to uphold historically or legally under British domestic or international law.

This has no foundation whatsoever. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) specifically mentions Queen Victoria as it was her who was the Monarch at the time of Assent (on the 9th of July 1900). Obviously the present Queen was not mentioned in the Constitution. She would not be born for another twenty-six years, but Section 2 of the Australian Constitution, which was a schedule to the British Act states: “2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”

Whilst our Constitution is established ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’, following the Queen’s accession, the Australian Parliament enacted, in 1953, the ‘Royal Style and Titles Act, 1953’ declaring the Royal Style and Title in Australia to be:

“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.

Similar Acts were passed through the Parliaments of all Commonwealth Realms. Twenty years later the Australian Parliament enacted a new style under the ‘Royal Style and Titles Act, 1973’ declaring that in Australia the style was thereafter to be:

“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”.

It is these two Acts of the Australian Parliament which determine the title ‘Queen of Australia’.

Actually the title “..and Ireland” ceased to exist in 1922 when the Anglo-Irish Treaty was ratified. It was thought at the time that the British Parliament could simply add the words “Northern” to the title in the Preamble to our Constitution by amending their own Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), but found that they could not do so as Section 128 of our Constitution places the entitlement to change solely with the Australian People through the referendum process. It has therefore remained unchanged, but this does not impede or affect in any way the validity of our Constitution for that was the title at the time of enactment. Put simple, when a woman gets married and, as is common nowadays, retains her maiden name for professional purposes, does this make any act in that name legally invalid. Of course not! Indeed since Federation, no Act passed by the British Parliament or any other Parliament has any jurisdiction over Australia unless ratified by a separate Act of the Australian Parliament.

3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has never held sovereignty over the Commonwealth of Australia, as a colony, a colonial federation or as an independent sovereign nation.

This claim refers to Australia being a signatory in its own right to the Treaty of Versailles, but the Australian Parliament itself enacted the Treaty of Peace Act 1919 that gave effect to Australia’s status in this regard.

The Australian Parliament, once elected and convened was empowered to act independently of any other authority, including the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was by a vote of the people in the Constitutional Referendums of the 1890s that the Australian Constitution was established ‘Under The Crown’ but this did not make the Parliament of the people subject to The Crown but the reverse. The Americans adopted British Law and conventions to suit their own purposes, just as the Australian Parliament has likewise done.

The Peace Treaty was not the first act of a sovereign nation for that was the election of the Australian Parliament which was subject only to the people. I know of no international law acknowledging the transfer of ‘sovereignty from King George V of the United Kingdom to the Australian People.’ The actual transfer of British rule took place on the 1st January 1901.

6. That the 1923 Imperial Conference held in London declared that the “Dominions”, of which Australia was one, were autonomous nations with the power to enter into international treaties.

These spurious arguments originated with attempts to challenge Australia’s taxations laws for the purpose of avoiding tax impositions, and failing in this through normal channels sought to challenge the validity of the Constitution document itself.

There are also critical comments that The Queen does not reply in detail to letters sent to Her Majesty expressing concerns against actions of the Government. Under our Westminster system, it is the constitutionally elected Parliament which is supreme for it is that which represents the will of the people. I know that there are, often valid, comments that once elected the politicians ignore the wishes of the people, but this is not the fault of the Constitution and most definitely not the fault of The Queen, but rather the apathy and disinterest of the majority of the people who elect one political party or the other.

Once appointed, it is the Governor-General who assumes the role of the Monarch in Australia. Both The Queen and the Governor-General must accept the advice of their constitutionally elected Government, for to do otherwise would be to go against the will of the people who elected it.

This is why they cannot make any response which may be taken to be adverse to the Government. However, those who write to The Queen can be assured that Her Majesty, on being informed, makes her opinions known to her Prime Ministers. Under our System of Government, as the famous Victorian Constitutionalist Walter Bagehot indicated in the 1860’s: “The Sovereign has, under a Constitutional Monarchy such as ours, three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.”

Just as there are checks on the Government to ensure that it does not act in contravention of the Constitution and goes to the people at or before the appointed time, so are there likewise limitations on The authority of the Sovereign and Governors-General. It is because of this system, which keeps power from any one individual or entity, that our Constitution has worked so well and has made Australia, one of the youngest nations, into the seventh oldest existing democracy in the World.

Organisers of the Commonwealth Games will not be having ‘God Save The Queen’ at its Opening by The Queen on the 15^th March 2006 but instead will be playing as the Anthem, ‘Advance Australia Fair’, which has led some Monarchists to declare this to be a snub to Her Majesty.

However although ‘God Save The Queen’ is the Australian Royal Anthem, it is highly appropriate to play ‘Advance Australia Fair’ as the National Song of Australia in the presence of The Queen of Australia. It is unfortunate that it is not actually an anthem as it the official version does not mention God.

‘God Save The Queen’ is also the National Anthem of the United Kingdom and when Australia and Britain are competing in sporting events, playing the same Anthem can give the impression that the Games are a British event, whereas they are anything but.

These protocols were approved by the Palace before it was announced that, as with all Commonwealth Games, it was the anthem of the host country which was to be played in the presence of The Queen and that as a consequence of this approval, there was, of course, no snub whatsoever to Her Majesty.

Plans had been made some time ago for eight bars of our Royal Anthem to be incorporated into a special musical tribute in honour of The Queen to be sung by Dame Kiri Te Kanawa as a part of the Opening Ceremony.

'God Save The King' was a patriotic song first publicly performed in London in 1745 and came to be referred to as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. The words and tune are anonymous, and may date back to the seventeenth century although it is said that it was composed by Henry Carey and first sung by him in 1740.

In September 1745 the 'Young Pretender' to the British Throne, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, defeated the army of King George II at Prestonpans, near Edinburgh. In a fit of patriotic fervour after news of Prestonpans had reached London, the leader of the band at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, arranged 'God Save The King' for performance after a play. It was a tremendous success and was repeated nightly thereafter. This practice soon spread to other theatres, and the custom of greeting the Monarch with the song as he or she entered a place of public entertainment was thus established.

There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition. Additional verses have been added down the years, but the words of the first verse are those sung in 1745, substituting 'Queen' for 'King' where appropriate.

STATEMENT OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS

CROWN PRINCE ALEXANDER II

FOLLOWING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE

MONTENEGRO REFERENDUM RESULTS

It has been officially confirmed that the people of Montenegro voted for independence.

I am sad, but I wish our Montenegrin brothers peace, democracy and happiness.

The people of Montenegro are our brothers and sisters no matter what if we live in one or in two countries, that is how it was and that is how it will be forever.

Now, it is time for us, Serbs, to completely dedicate ourselves to our Serbia. Too much blood has been spilled, too much strength of the people has been wasted, too much reputation has been lost in the twentieth century and even in the twenty first century with few positive results.

We cannot waste anymore precious time. Now is the golden time for Serbia to put itself in order, according to its measures. That measure is the Kingdom of Serbia.

I strongly believe in the Constitutional Parliamentary Kingdom of Serbia. Again, we need to be proud, a strong Serbia that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours. We were a proud, respected and happy country