Liberty Newsletter January 2021

01 February 2021

Click here to download a PDF of the newsletter.

Letter to Members - January 2021

In January 2020 we could have had no idea of the tragedy that was to befall us and, indeed, the world. Whilst there were cases of COVID19, we were unconcerned until there were large outbreaks and then lockdowns commenced in this country. Despite the virus being continually brought in by overseas travellers, we remain one of the lucky countries in the world despite a number of tragic deaths which should have been avoided.

A year ago, we were discussing the surprise upset of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex removing themselves from royal duties. I suppose, in a year hence, we will still be discussing them and their doings in the United States of America. The tragedy was that Prince Harry was extremely popular in this country, even to the extent of a great number of people wanting him to live here on a semi-permanent basis.

In Australia, we have been facing another upset, this time with social media rejecting certain of our posts wanting us to remove words which apparently offend others. We do know that republicans have set up teams to monitor our social media and to register complaints that they are offended by certain things that we say. Of course, unlike republicans, everything we post is diplomatically worded and factually correct, but it seems that the controllers are on the left and they view us as being on the right which is certainly not true.

The Australian Monarchist League stands for the Australian Constitution and the Crown. We honour the Queen and we value our system of governance. We are neither politically right nor left. We are monarchists and constitutionalists, insofar as we support Australia's system of constitutional monarchy.

Whenever I may use the term 'left', I do not refer to Labor voters, many of whom are members and supporters of our organisation. Rather I refer to those who seek to tear down our structures of democracy. It is these people that label themselves to be on the left of politics. The Australian Monarchist League has no formal alignment with any political organisation. As I said, we are monarchists and we are constitutionalists.

An Early Federal Election?

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
― Benjamin Franklin

The pundits are saying that there is likely to be a federal election towards the end of this year in September/October. The likelihood is that the Morrison Liberal/National Coalition will win, but, of course, nothing is ever certain.

This means that the Australian Monarchist League must again start preparing for the eventuality, however remote, of an Albanese Labor/Republic government.

Immediately he was elected leader of the opposition, Anthony Albanese appointed his shadow attorney general, Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP (yes, Queen’s Counsel) as shadow minister for constitutional reform thus elevating a republic to shadow cabinet status and replacing the junior position earlier held under Bill Shorten by Matt Thistlethwaite as shadow assistant minister for the republic.

A future Albanese government is therefore very serious about pursuing a republic and we must all be on our guard for such an eventuality.

Many people ask why is it that we in Australia, faced such a virulent move towards a republic whereas sister nations like Canada and New Zealand do not.

In 1981, as an expression of its outrage against the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government, the national conference of the Australian Labor Party included a republic in its party platform. However, despite Labor being in power since March 1983 it did nothing whatsoever to promote this policy until the June 1991 ALP Annual Conference held in Hobart when it voted to confirm its 1981 pro-republic policy. In December 1991 Paul Keating became Prime Minister and he has been the only Labor prime minister to actively and aggressively pursue a republic. In 1993 he established the Republic Advisory Committee chaired by his friend Malcolm Turnbull.

The model proposed by that committee was essentially the model put to the people in November 1999 under the Howard Liberal government and was resoundingly defeated. Despite Labor being in power for six years since that time, no further referendum on any matter has been put to the people. However, with this policy in place and even though approximately one third of Labor voters voted against a republic in 1999, no Labor politician who supports the monarchy is allowed to express his or her views for fear of being disenfranchised.

Despite this, constitutional change is clearly not of any real concern to the people. There are big-business funded bleatings from the Australian Republic Movement which continually fall on deaf ears (it appears to have changed its name from ‘republican’ following the 2016 election of Donald Trump).

The Australian Monarchist League

2020 was a very busy year for us despite the lockdowns and not being able to organise meetings and functions properly. We have set up our educational website and are now working on our teaching programme. As mentioned earlier, it is imperative that there be an understanding amongst the general public of the role that the Queen and the Crown fulfil within our constitutional arrangements. It is also important that people understand our Australian democracy and our system of governance.

Last year federal and state governments put into place financial assistance for businesses, private individuals and even charities. Unfortunately, even though we are categorised as a business and have similar overheads, none of the areas of assistance apply to us and we have had to manage as best as we can with a greatly reduced income. We have also had to bear the cost of establishing our educational programme which we are rushing to put into place so that we are able to get an impartial and simplified message across to all Australian citizens on our system of constitutional monarchy and why it protects us as no republican system could ever do.

So, in this regard we thank all those who have stayed with us over the past year and particularly those who have donated a little extra to help keep us going.

The Storming Of The Capitol

The storming of the Capitol building in Washington brings to mind the time that our own parliament house was attacked in 1996, on that occasion as a by-product of a rally organised by the ACTU to protest against the incoming Howard government’s industrial relations reform agenda.

Protesters forced their way through the main doors of Parliament House and into the foyer causing a lot of damage and looting the Parliamentary shop. Around 90 people were injured but fortunately no one was killed.

In a democracy like ours, peaceful protests are allowed generally as an expression of dissent against government policy or as a lobby tactic to try to persuade the government to take action on a particular issue. It is very easy for the outrage that is often expressed at such protests to turn into violence. Whilst in the Australia of the 1990s security was treated more casually, there is no excuse for the Capitol building in Washington not to have been properly secured and defended. After all the security forces had sufficient warning that there was to be a mass protest and common sense should have indicated that it could turn violent, something that unfortunately has become more commonplace in the United States in recent times.

The Indigenous Voice To Parliament

A new report on an Indigenous voice to Parliament has been presented and we will be studying it once it is released. The position of the Australian Monarchist League is that whatever is proposed neither it nor anything else can bind, or even should influence, the Parliament to vote in a certain manner. That is a fundamental part of our system of governance.

Furthermore, the Australian Monarchist League believes that there should be no attempt to create a separate nation. We all came together at the time of Federation, or if not exactly at that time, then certainly within the last 50 years, so that today all Australians are equal under the Crown and, to misquote from George Orwell: ‘and none are more equal than any other’.

The Prince Of Wales

In my last letter, I urged those members who were concerned about the outspoken comments of the Prince of Wales to write direct to him expressing your concerns. Some took this as being against Prince Charles but this is, by no means, the case. We live in a democracy guaranteed by the Crown. It is the right of every subject of the Queen to voice agreement or dissent in a peaceable manner. It is for this reason that Republicans can attack the very constitution that enables them to exercise free speech.

Of course, as far as some are concerned free speech means agreeing only with what they say, as we have seen with certain premiers in recent times. We saw this only a few days ago with the Premier of Victoria’s outburst against the Australian honour awarded to Margaret Court. Daniel Andrew’s comments which were essentially that because Margaret Court had voiced comments with which he and others did not agree, she should be denied the honour the independent honours committee listed her for. Whilst we may not agree with either, under our democracy she is entitled to express her opinion, just as he is.

You might also recall that when Tony Abbott visited Cardinal Pell in prison, Andrews said he should apologise whereas Abbott was there to offer solace and sympathy to a friend in strife.

Such is the way in which some politicians now abuse the intrinsic rights inherent within our democracy under the Crown. Heaven help us all if that Crown were ever to be removed, which, of course, is the intention of the majority of our politicians. Let the comments of some of our authoritarian politicians, state and federal, be a lesson to us on never, ever to do away with our system of democracy.

The Prince of Wales is, and always has been, an ardent environmentalist. Many do not agree with him, but on the other hand many do. He should be held up as an icon of the Green’s political movements as he was considered an environmentalist long before any of them came into being - but he is despised by them. Think of that as you will.

Media are now calling Prince Charles ‘old-fashioned’, denying that he has always been modern in his outlook. He is a sign of his times, as are so many aged 60 and over which accounts for a significant percentage of those in countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Virtually nothing is reported by the media of the work done by his ‘Prince’s Trust’ which has just helped its millionth applicant. How many other individuals can claim this? Certainly, he says things that many people do not agree with, but surely no one can fault him for the way in which he uses his position to achieve the immense amount of charitable work that he does around the world. You can read more about the work the Prince’s Trust achieves in Australia here: https://www.princes-trust.org.au/

The Australian Flag

With a renewed push for Scottish independence by the Scottish nationalists, there are likewise renewed calls for a change to the Australian flag. The argument is that if Scotland does leave the United Kingdom, then the British union flag will change. However, such an occurrence should have no bearing on the Australian flag as the crosses and stripes have come to represent the ethnicity of the original British settlers of this country with the stars of the Southern Cross representing the country and its indigenous inhabitants. The large star, of course, represents the states and territories.

In any event, one wonders whether Scotland can ever be legally separated from the United Kingdom as Article I of the Act of Union 1707 required “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain.” This meant that both England and Scotland as sovereign states, ceased to exist and that the then Queen of England and separately Queen of Scotland and her successors were thereafter designated Queen, or King of Great Britain. Following the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland in 1801, the monarch’s title again changed to King of the United Kingdom.

The words “and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain” should mean that Scotland is an integrated part of the union in a similar manner in which the Australian colonies joined in an “indissoluble union.” When Western Australia attempted to secede from the (Australian) union in 1933, it found it was unable to do so, at least easily, and the matter was dropped because it was thought at the time that it would take a referendum of all the Australian states to agree.

Australia Day 2021

It is such a shame that media and particularly the ‘people’s’ broadcaster, the ABC, seem to concentrate only on the downsides of history and not the overall benefits. This is particularly so on each year’s Australia Day.

That that settlement displaced the indigenous people who had been in Australia for many thousands of years is acknowledged and regretful. However, it should also be realised that without that settlement Australia would never have become the nation it is today.

As we all know, Australia Day marks the arrival of the British in Australia, now 233 years ago. The Fleet had actually arrived at Botany Bay sometime between 18 and 20 January 1788, but after investigation it became apparent that the area was unsuitable for a settlement and the Fleet upped anchors and sailed around to Port Jackson which Governor Philip named Sydney Cove.

It was there on the 26 January 1788 that Governor Arthur Phillip proclaimed the eastern seaboard of Australia as being under the sovereignty and protection of Great Britain. A plaque marking the very space that Governor Philip raised the British flag, thereby bringing the rule of law and order to this country, can be seen in Loftus Street at Circular Quay.

Celebrations of this occasion can be found as far back as 1808, however it was not until the Keating Labor government declared that 26 January was to be marked as the Australia Day official public holiday throughout Australia.

What the ABC and others neglect to mention is that the proclamation, which Australia Day also celebrates includes the instructions dated the 25th day of April 1787given by King George III to Governor Phillip in which the King insisted that he (Governor Phillip) was: “to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations. It is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence.”

It was therefore always the intention of the British Administration to treat kindly with the Aborigines, although some officers and many settlers did not do so.

Of course, over the years there has been bad treatment not only of the indigenous people, but also of migrants brought over to work, particularly the Chinese and the Pacific Islanders. We should also not forget that 50% of the original British settlers were convicts, a number of whom were transported for very minor offences, such as stealing food to eat.

One person was transported for stealing a handkerchief, another potatoes and yet another cucumber plants, and so on. Of course, there were those with more serious offences, but all were subjected to treatment which we would consider today to be inhumane.

But times were different then and we should all have moved on by now and recognise that Australia is a free, independent and sovereign nation in which all people are equal one to another. A country in which there is racial and religious tolerance and in which any man or woman can, through their own determination, make something of themselves.

Above all, we should never try to rewrite history, as so many are attempting to do, but to learn from it and to value what our democracy has grown into; a democracy which would never have come about had Governor Arthur Phillip not raised the British flag on Australian soil 233 years ago. That act has led to a free and united Australia which has become the envy of the world.

In this day and age, Australia Day also represents the bringing together of six separate colonies into one federated nation which occurred on 1 January 1901. It also honours all those, from 1788 onwards, who helped to make this country what it is today.

In each decade we see a change in our demographics. According to the last census in 2016, 56.4% of the population classified themselves as being British and 12.5% as being European whereas, surprisingly, only 33.5% listed themselves as being Australian. It is interesting to note that only 2.8% of the population said they were of indigenous descent which is the same percentage as Indian migrants with 5.6% saying that they were of Chinese descent.

Whatever the racial ancestry of a citizen of this country is, as citizens, they are all Australians, and all owe allegiance to the values of our great nation. To deny Australia’s heritage is a very denial of citizenship. As proven by constant polling by far an overwhelming majority of Australians want to keep Australia Day as it is and possibly the more that the ABC and other media outlets attempt to demean and even destroy it, the more we all realise that they are in reality seeking to divide this nation, just as politics has divided the United States of America, perhaps irrevocably.

Moreover, should the date ever be changed from 26 January, whatever date is selected, there will always be moves to change it motivated by divisiveness rather than any genuine desire for reconciliation. Furthermore, activists, including the ABC, fail to appreciate the difficulties in establishing the date of a public holiday so that it does not interfere with national and state calendars.

Future Gatherings

Your national and several state committees are working on holding regular events once the vaccine starts to roll out. This is because a number of members will not attend meetings or functions until after this occurs. In April we will be celebrating the 95th birthday of the Queen and in June the hundredth of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Next February, the Commonwealth, and particularly the Commonwealth realms, will be celebrating the Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II marking an historic 70 years on the throne. This will occur in February 2022, just a year and a few days away.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom has started making arrangements and has already established ‘The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Society of the Houses of Parliament’ comprising all parties and we are calling upon the Australian Parliament’s, both federal and state, to likewise establish all-party parliamentary groups to, in an equitable fashion, jointly plan nationwide events to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Whilst Labor has as its policy the promotion of a republic, it should be put to them that celebrating such an historic achievement in the reign of the Queen of Australia, a title formally bestowed on her by a Labor government, should not preclude them from joining in an all-party group to properly celebrate this occurrence.

After all, the Queen is head of the parliament in which they serve and all federal politicians have all sworn or affirmed to ‘be faithful and bear true allegiance’ to her. The oath they must constitutionally make before taking their seat is: “I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!”

We are in the process of drafting an online petition calling on the government to properly celebrate the Jubilee and will be in contact with those on our email list to support it. Being online, we would hope to gather several thousand signatures, something which would be difficult to do with physical petitions nowadays.

It will be the only such Jubilee in the history of our shared monarchy and one which is unlikely to occur for a very long time, if ever. The Queen has been our sovereign for nearly sixty percent of our existence as a nation since Federation and the Platinum Jubilee of her reign is an event which all Australians should properly celebrate. Honouring Elizabeth II is not only above politics but is most certainly above the republic debate and those who demean or decry the occasion not only show how shallow they are but debases their very Australianness for this event will indeed be history in the making.

With my very best wishes for 2021

Yours sincerely
Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League

Is Monarchism a Purely Conservative View?

By Boston Edwards

A belief in Monarchism is often associated with Conservatism. It is right to say that being a Monarchist makes you conservative in that you want to protect the system of government that is in place. However, a belief in monarchy does not mean you are a conservative on other social and economic issues. Throughout my involvement in student politics, I have met progressive individuals who are also monarchist. I myself wouldn't necessarily share many of the conservative views that the majority of members of the Australian Monarchist League hold.

Conversely, Republicans can also hold very conservative views. A friend of mine is a social conservative but at the same time supports the implementation of an Australian Republic. The reason why Monarchism has been aligned with the Conservative side of politics is primarily to do with the culture surrounding Monarchism, religious connotations and ensuring a continuation of traditions associated with Monarchy. Furthermore, the idea that a Monarchy is needed to ensure the healthy continuation of Liberal Democracy is usually a conservative view.

This notion is not helped by the two big progressive parties in Australian politics; Labor and the Greens. Since 1991 the Labor Party has continually adopted policy changes that have led towards their Members of Parliament being bound by caucus solidarity to support a move towards a Republic. Former Labor Senator; Joe Bullock, left both the Senate and his Party over their overt Republicanism. In a similar vein, The Greens also support a Republic and have included it in their policy platform. According to a 2013 article by the ABC, results from their 'Vote Compass' surveys showed that about 26.9% of Labor voters support the retention of the Monarchy whilst 21.7% of Greens voters are supportive of retaining the Monarchy. To put that in perspective; roughly 1 in 4 Labor voters and 1 in 5 Greens voters are either Monarchist or don't necessarily support a move to a Republic during the current Monarch's reign whereas 23.6% of Coalition voters are Republicans. The idea that Monarchists are Conservatives is simply superficial.

More broadly, Nations with Constitutional Monarchies are often quite progressive, especially the Nordic Monarchies of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. These nations are often viewed by many on the progressive side of politics as an ideal model on how a country should function. Furthermore, other European kingdoms often are more socially progressive than fellow European Republics. The Netherlands for example was the first nation in the world to legalise Same-Sex Marriage and have relatively liberal drug laws.

The fight to retain the Monarchy in Australia must involve progressive voices who can argue the case to those that may disagree with many Monarchists on other issues. As a Monarchist Movement, we should be reaching out to all Australians, and this must include progressives whether they are Monarchist or otherwise.

Boston Edwards describes himself as both a proud young Aboriginal man and a Monarchist. His people are the Gumbaynggirr people of the Mid North Coast of New South Wales.

The Coronation Oath & The Title of The Queen as Queen of Australia.

Few people could not but be moved by the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. To see the rather shy and hesitant young lady commit herself to serving her people not, as is the case with politicians for only a few years, but for the rest of her life, was an awe-inspiring sight. At her coronation, the Archbishop of Canterbury asked, “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples … according to their respective laws and customs?” and “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?” she responded, “I solemnly promise so to do” and “I will”

This solemn commitment meant an end to her life as a normal person and the commencement of her duties as Queen Regnant of sixteen separate countries including the United Kingdom and Australia. (A Queen Regnant is the monarch whereas a Queen Consort, as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was, is the wife of the monarch.)

As the Queen approached 80 and then 90, the media consistently raised the issue of abdication, but Her Majesty has always held that the oath she took at her coronation in 1953 was binding upon her for life.

All those who serve the Queen in Australia, including lawyers and judges, soldiers or federal politicians, are required to swear or affirm allegiance to Her Majesty. This allegiance is, in fact, an oath made not merely to the Queen but through her to the coronation oath she took in 1953 to serve the people with mercy and according to law. The oath of allegiance is also binding upon all who take or have taken it, not just for the period of their service, but for life. My understanding is that, had the referendum vote of 1999 succeeded and had Australia become a republic, the Queen would have been called upon to remove the fealty owed by all those who had sworn or affirmed allegiance to her.

There was a time when, if one voiced and encouraged sedition against the Sovereign, he or she would be guilty of treason. Whilst the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act appears to redefine the manner in which treason and sedition is viewed, it is surely improper, if not unlawful, for a person of whatever status whether a High Court judge, a federal politician or a soldier, who has sworn allegiance to the Queen, to call for her removal, or worse who vilifies the Sovereign as many republicans are wont to do, even politicians speaking both in the parliament and outside. It should not be forgotten that the Queen is head of the parliament and all politicians should show respect, particularly since they have all sworn or affirmed to ‘be faithful and bear true allegiance’ to her. The oath they must constitutionally make before taking their seat is: “I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!”

The basis of the Coronation Oath is to establish a pact between the sovereign and the people. Likewise, allegiance to the Queen establishes a pact between the swearer through the Queen to the people. It is not as many say ‘mere words’ but a solemn and binding commitment. The gesture of purposefully lying when taking allegiance by crossing one’s fingers behind his or her back is both childish and stupid and shows how incompetent and untrustworthy the swearer actually is. Politicians who do this should not be allowed to take their seats as they are spurning an oath from which everything they do as a politician from that moment on is dependent. Such politicians who swear or affirm allegiance without meaning a word of it undoubtedly have, in their minds, that they are superior to the constitution.

When earlier questioned about their intent to remove the Crown, republican politicians pointed to section 128 of the Constitution, the referendum process to change the constitution, as their authority to justify campaigning to remove the Queen.

Whilst section 128 is indeed the constitutional process to amend the constitution, it does not remove the obligation taken by anyone who has sworn or affirmed allegiance to the Queen. Only Her Majesty can do that.

Of course, it still remains legally arguable that section 128 is actually competent to both remove the Crown and potentially the union of the six States within the Australian Federation, but that is an argument for another day.

Many people question why the position of republicans in Australia is so strong when, in other similar realms settled by the British such as Canada and New Zealand, it is not. This is because in 1981, as an expression of its outrage against the 1975 dismissal of the Labor government of Gough Whitlam, the national conference of the Australian Labor Party included a republic in its party platform. However, despite Labor being in power since March 1983 it did nothing whatsoever to promote this policy until the June 1991 ALP Annual Conference held in Hobart when it voted to confirm its 1981 pro-republic policy. In December 1991 Paul Keating became Prime Minister and he has been the only Labor prime minister to actively and aggressively pursue a republic. In 1993 he established the Republic Advisory Committee chaired by his friend Malcolm Turnbull.

British monarchs have sworn an oath at their coronations since that of King Edgar in 973 A.D. That ceremony had been drawn up from earlier documents by Saint Dunstan. The anointing originated from the biblical record (1 Kings 1 v 39) of the coronation of King Solomon (970 to 931 BC).

Since Saxon times the decision on who was to be king rested with a council (the Witan) and later the parliament. Even when a person took the throne by force, the council or later the parliament had to agree. In this manner the English monarchy was different from monarchies in European countries.

In 1066, William the Conqueror (pictured left) invaded England and took the throne. His claim was spurious even though he was a distant cousin of King Edward of England (Edward the Confessor). However, he submitted to the Witan for election (mind you, they had no choice) but also adopted a number of laws in existence. This is shown at the Coronation of William’s descendant, Edward II in 1308 when he was asked “Will you grant and keep and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs granted to them by the ancient kings of England your righteous and godly predecessors, and especially the laws, customs and privileges granted to the clergy and people by the glorious King Saint Edward your predecessor?”

In 1688 the king of England and Scotland, James II, faced great opposition to his attempt to restore the Roman Catholic faith. England had established the Anglican Church with the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and Scotland had officially become a Protestant country in 1560.

This opposition led to the indirect abdication of James who fled to France and the English parliament then invited his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William to jointly take the Throne. Like Mary, William was also a grandchild of Charles I. This episode became known as ‘The Glorious Revolution’, so-called because there was no war, and no blood was spilt.

In 1689 William and Mary were crowned in accordance with a new statute entitled ‘the Coronation Oath Act 1688’. That statute sets out the requirements of the coronation oath to this present day. However, even though the statute itself has not been amended, different wordings have been used to accommodate the needs current at the time. For instance, in 1707 England and Scotland became one nation under the name Great Britain and in 1801 Ireland joined Great Britain which then became the United Kingdom. In 1877 Queen Victoria (pictured left) was proclaimed Empress of India and ‘The Statute of Westminster ‘of 1931 and the Declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926 recognised the independent sovereignty of what was then called the Dominions, which included Australia. All of these changes resulted in amendments to the coronation oath of the monarch following each change, but the statute remained unaltered. Therefore, the amendments are termed ‘by implication’ and were made for the sake of expediency.

Of course, what Parliament makes it can unmake and there is no reason for amendments not to have been made to the statute. However, since the passage of the Statute of Westminster it would now be a requirement for any amendment to be passed by the Parliaments of all 16 realms, that is all those countries which have, as their sovereign, the monarch of the United Kingdom.

The two coronations which took place following the Statute of Westminster were that of George VI and his daughter, the Queen. In the Queen’s Coronation Oath she was asked: Archbishop: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?” The Queen: “I solemnly promise so to do.” The oath taken by George VI also contained the words ‘Canada, Australia and New Zealand’, and by this the realms, which included what were known as the dominions, were recognised as self-governing nations under the Crown with the King, and later Queen, being separately sovereign of each realm. In this manner George VI therefore became acknowledged as the first King of Australia.

The changes to include countries such as Australia in the oath taken by George VI from that of his father George V in 1911 were announced in Australia by the then prime minister, Joseph Lyons who advised that the new oath was drafted following agreement by the members of the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ and was required because the old oath ‘did not indicate the existing constitutional position of the British Commonwealth, following on the 1926 declaration of equality of status, and the subsequent passing of the Statute of Westminster’.

Prior to the Queen’s coronation in June 1953, all realms, including the United Kingdom, passed a Royal Styles and Titles Act. In Australia the title of the Queen in Australia under the Australian Act was declared 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.”

In 1973, the Whitlam government passed a new Act in which the title of the Queen in Australia 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.”

This act eliminated both the reference to the United Kingdom, and the title 'Defender of the Faith' which was part of the Queen’s title in the 1953 Act. It also specifically styled the Queen as Queen of Australia. The removal of the reference to the United Kingdom was an acknowledgement that Australia was a separately sovereign nation and the removal of the title 'Defender of the Faith' reflected Australia’s constitutional position as a secular nation. Australia has no established religion and the Australian Constitution protects, in section 116 ‘the free exercise of any religion’.

I say ‘specifically styled the Queen as Queen of Australia’ because, as explained earlier, the coronation oaths of the monarchs which took place since the Statute of Westminster 1931 made special reference to the monarch as King or Queen of Australia. Those monarchs being George VI and Elizabeth II. Edward VIII did not have a coronation.

Even though the title ‘Queen of Australia’ has been in place for nearly fifty years, the Australian media and republicans continue to refer to Elizabeth as Queen of England whereas, as has been explained, her proper title is Queen of the United Kingdom and in Australia separately Queen of Australia. In both instances this is often not in error but a purposeful attempt to try to make the Queen a distant and irrelevant figure who is not resident in Australia as a president would be. They forget that Australians value the system of constitutional monarchy and quite understand that the executive head of state is the Governor-General who represents the Queen and that he is not a ‘one of us’ politician.

The title of the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom evolved over the years just as the title Queen of Australia did. Originally the British monarch was, indeed, called, King of England but during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1707) both England and Scotland agreed to unite into one nation under an Act of Union. Although separately sovereign countries, both had shared the same king since James VI of Scotland had assumed the English throne on the death of his distant cousin Elizabeth I in 1603. James was a descendant of Elizabeth’s grandfather Henry VII. Article I of the Act of Union 1707 required “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain the two kingdoms of England and Scotland be ever after united.” This meant that both England and Scotland as sovereign states, ceased to exist and that Anne and her successors were thereafter designated Queen, or King of Great Britain. Following the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland in 1801, the monarch’s title again changed to King of the United Kingdom.

There are some people who refuse to accept the 1973 Royal Style and Titles Act, possibly because Whitlam was the Prime Minister and motivator. However, the Bill (a Bill of the Parliament does not become an Act until it receives Royal Assent given either by the Queen herself or the Governor-General) was passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate which Labor did not control. Furthermore, the Bill was reserved for the Queen to sign (pictured on the left). The then Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck, had written on the Bill 'I reserve this proposed law for Her Majesty's pleasure' and the Queen signed it personally on the 19th of October 1973. Therefore, to refuse to accept an Act personally signed by the Queen, is tantamount to refusing to accept the Queen’s acceptance of it. Whilst the Queen is constitutionally bound to give Royal Assent to any Bill which passes through both houses of parliament, had she not agreed with this particular Act she could have sat back and allowed the Governor-General to sign it as her representative, as is the case with most Bills passed by the parliament in this country.

As mentioned earlier, Edward VIII did not have a coronation and therefore did not swear the coronation oath. He became king on the death of his father George V on 20 January 1936 and remained king until he abdicated on 11 December 1936. During his reign he gave royal assent to Bills including the one which ended it. Not being crowned did not affect his actions as King.

Obviously it would be impossible to take the oath before becoming monarch as the moment one sovereign dies, his or her heir immediately accedes to the throne. This is called the Accession. However, the oath must be sworn to at an appointed time as, according to section 4 of the 1688 Act and also to section 2 of the Act of Settlement, it is a requirement on which the Crown is held.

In earlier times coronations were held shortly following accession, other than that of Edward I (in 1274) as he was on a crusade in the Holy Land when his father died. However, these days the time between accession and coronation is around one year, as a period of mourning must pass. The interval between the time Elizabeth became Queen and her coronation was sixteen months. In modern times, due to the huge crowds expected to line the streets, the coronation is planned to take place in the English summer. For instance, the coronation of Victoria was in June. Edward VII’s was planned to take place in June but was delayed until August due to an operation. George V’s coronation was in June and that of George VI was in May.

William IV was 63 years of age when he came to the throne. He was a sailor by profession and lived his life in a much humbler and domesticated manner than his contemporaries. He was the fourth son of George III and succeeded his brother George IV in 1830. He felt that he was too old to warrant the expense of a coronation but was advised that he could not continue to be king without one. As it was, he insisted that expenditure on his coronation be minimal and instead of a banquet he and Queen Adelaide returned straight back to St. James’s Palace.

Whilst the Coronation is a very British affair and is in accordance with British law, the nation of Australia was established by the people: “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.”

Therefore, whoever is the legitimately crowned sovereign of the United Kingdom is sovereign of Australia.

Republicans (and by that I also include the mainstream media) try to confuse the public by inferring that because the sovereign of the United Kingdom is sovereign of Australia, Britain (the British government) dictates our policy. That is a blatant and purposefully misleading lie. Under the Australian Constitution, the Queen, through her representative the Governor-General acts only on the advice of her Australian government and in accordance with the Australian Constitution. The British government and its parliament in this day and age have nothing whatsoever to do with our governance. This is why, under section 128 of the Australian Constitution, referring to the referendum process, it is only the Australian people, not the British parliament or its government or even the Queen, who can vote on any change to the Constitution. Only the Australian people can do that. In such an instance, the Queen has always said that she will abide by whatever decision the people may make.

The system of governance that was laid down by our Founding Fathers, in the constitution they drafted, paved the way for Australia to gradually be released from the ties that naturally bound Australia to the United Kingdom. Today, the Australian people elect their own parliament, as they have done for over a hundred years. That parliament is now the supreme legislative body in the country and has no ties to any external power whatsoever.

We, the people, have chosen to have a system of constitutional monarchy with the Queen of Australia as our sovereign. As Queen of Australia she receives formal advice only from her Australian ministers. Her duties as our Queen are entirely separate from her duties in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand or in any of her other Realms. Of course, our democracy is such that the people can, at referendum, opt for another system of governance. That is our choice, and no one else’s.

There have been suggestions that Australia should invite a member of the Royal family to become our own monarch. The problem with this scenario is that the constitution would need to be rewritten to define the powers and duties of a resident monarch and to remove those of the Governor-General. There would also be a huge additional cost for upkeep and security and, in any event, would probably be considered by most Australians nowadays to be a step too far. If such a thing were possible, it should probably have been done in conjunction with Federation in 1901.

As it is, by our choice we have a monarch not resident in Australia but represented by a resident Governor-General now always an Australian. We do not pay the Queen any money for her upkeep or even for her duties as Queen of Australia. We do pay a salary to the Governor-General and pay for the upkeep for the official residences. However, the amounts involved pale into insignificance when compared with heads of state of most countries.

Moreover, our system of constitutional monarchy is a system that not only works, but works well and has done so, without blemish and without any major constitutional crisis, for over a hundred years. Long may it continue.

END

Advance Australia Fair

The change to Australia’s national anthem with “For we are young and free” amended to “For we are one and free” has met with mixed results for varying reasons with some for, some against, others not bothered and with some wanting a new anthem altogether. However, what the change has done is to make people realise that Australia’s national anthem actually has no legal basis. There is no act of Parliament and other than several surveys and a confusing poll in the 1970s which voted on a tune and not the words, there has been no formal plebiscite whereby the people, whose national anthem it is supposed to be, have been given an opportunity to vote either before the adoption of a sanitised song was an announced in 1984 or arbitrarily changed in 2021.

The Story Behind A New Anthem

One year after taking office, in 1973 the Whitlam government decided that “God save the Queen” should be replaced as the country’s national anthem. A contest was conducted but none of the entries were deemed to be suitable. The nineteenth century songs "Advance Australia Fair", "Waltzing Matilda" and "The Song of Australia" were therefore shortlisted and in 1974 a nationwide survey was held polling 60,000 people 51.4% of whom selected "Advance Australia Fair" which was then announced in parliament by Gough Whitlam to be the national anthem.

This decision was rescinded by the Fraser government in 1976 which decided that a vote had to be held on several songs including the existing anthem “God save the Queen”. A non-compulsory plebiscite was held as an optional additional question in the 1977 constitutional referendum. That referendum posed four questions, three of which passed and was the last time any proposed change to the Australian Constitution succeeded.

The proposals were:

To alter the Constitution to ensure that senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. (not carried)

To alter the Constitution to ensure as far as practicable that a casual vacancy in the senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the Senator chosen by the people and for the balance of their term. (carried)

To alter the Constitution so as to allow electors in the territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution. (carried)

To alter the Constitution so as to provide for retiring ages for judges of federal courts. (carried)

The question asked in regard to an anthem was: “Against the background that ‘God Save The Queen’ Is the National Anthem to be played on Regal and Vice Regal occasions, electors may indicate their preferences as to which of the tunes of the songs listed below they would prefer to be played on other occasions.”

Advance Australia Fair received 43.29% of those who voted. However, since the vote was not for the wording of a national song but only for the tune, many people thought they were voting for music to be played on sporting and other such occasions and that God Save the Queen would continue as the national anthem, as seemed to be indicated in the question, which is why it received only 18.78% of the vote. It is interesting that electors in the ACT voted 48.68% for Waltzing Matilda.

As it happened, God Save the Queen was sung on most occasions until 1984 when the Hawke government arbitrarily announced a rewritten version of Advance Australia Fair as Australia’s national anthem. The Fairfax press wrote “Canberra – Federal Cabinet has made ‘Advance Australia Fair’ the official national anthem, relegating ‘God Save The Queen’ to occasions when members of the Royal Family are present. (SMH 12/4/84)”

The fact that there has been no Act of Parliament in this regard means that any government can change Australia’s national anthem in any way it may wish and at any time as it has no legal status. Although two Governors-General have signed papers they are not legally binding on the people.

The History Of Advance Australia Fair

The words and music were composed by a Scottish immigrant, Peter Dodds McCormick (pictured), who came to Australia in 1855. He was the son of a Glasgow seaman and on his arrival in Australia worked as a joiner and stonemason whilst studying eventually becoming a teacher. He was also a talented composer and published around 30 patriotic and Scottish songs. He also wrote Advance Australia Fair but under the pseudonym Amicus (Latin for 'friend') feeling aggrieved that there was no song for Australia. He was a devout member of the Presbyterian Church, becoming choirmaster and also convenor of his church assembly committee. He died in 1916, aged 83 in Sydney.

According to the Oxford Companion to Australian Music, Advance Australia Fair was first performed at a Loyal Orange Lodge ceremony in Sydney on 12 July 1878. However, Wikipedia says it was first sung by Andrew Fairfax at a function of the Highland Society of New South Wales in Sydney on 30 November 1878. Being a devout Presbyterian undoubtedly the song was sung on both occasions.

An amended version of the song was sung by a choir of around 10,000 at the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January 1901. In 1907 the Australian Government awarded McCormick £100 for the use of his composition.

The original 1878 verses of Advance Australia Fair are below. An unofficial portrayal of the original song can be viewed below.

Verse One

Australia's sons let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"

Verse Two

When gallant Cook from Albion sail'd,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
"Britannia rules the wave!"
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

Verse Three

While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar,
We'll rise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star;
From England, Scotia, Erin's Isle,
Who come our lot to share,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

Verse Four

Shou'd foreign foe e'er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We'll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Britannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide ocean's roll,
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul.
In joyful strains the let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

The Concept of Freedom

As with early writings of democracy, the concept of freedom was first written about in early Greece, but the democracy and the freedom spoken about at that time was restricted only to the upper levels of free men. Women were considered to be the chattels of men, as they were, in certain ways, right up until the last century. In around 340 BC Aristotle (pictured left) said this about freedom:

"Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality."

It is probable that earlier civilisations, and in particular the Sumerian Civilization which began around 6000 years ago, had similar concepts of freedom and democracy. This civilisation had the oldest known written laws which date back to 2400 B.C. when the Code of Er-Nammu was written on stone tablets. We do know that earlier laws did exist, but no tablets have as yet been unearthed. This civilisation was different from any of the other earlier civilisations in that in around 2500 B.C it had a female ruler named Kubaba, who is the first known female monarch ever.

However, the modern concept of freedom and liberty as we know it began, not in France nor in the United States of America, as is often thought, but over a thousand years ago in England.

The rights of the individual became an integral part of English life under the Saxon kings. Alfred the Great {848/9 - 899} (pictured left) set out in writing a set of laws based on the Ten Commandments. This can be said to be the first of the People’s Charter in that King Alfred set out to protect the rights of the people but the first historically recognised charter formally bestowed by the King to the people came 100 years before Magna Carta. That was the Charter of Liberties which was proclaimed by Henry I of England, the son of William the Conqueror, and issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100 A.D.. It bound the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals and whilst these laws and commitments related only to freeman and mainly to nobles, it was a major step along the long pathway of the move away from the absolute rule of kings. That pathway took over 800 years for the concept of freedom to develop into something like the freedoms we, in Australia, enjoy today.

We should always remember that our concept of freedom is the result of protests, riots, insurrection - which Magna Carta was, and civil wars which took place in England and which was later gifted to those countries it invaded or settled. Therefore, the freedoms and the democracy we in Australia enjoy as our right today, originated as British freedoms and British democracy.

As the 19th century poet, William Wordsworth, wrote in 1815:

It is not to be thought of that the Flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flowed, 'with pomp of waters, unwithstood,'
Roused though it be full often to a mood
Which spurns the check of salutary bands,
That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands
Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung
Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held. In everything we are sprung
Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.

Under the Crown, English law developed in a different manner to that which existed in Europe. In Britain there are two principal categories of law – Common and Statute. Common Law is based on rulings by judges (court judgments) which become precedents for future laws. Statute Laws are laws enacted by parliaments. Generally, but not always, Common Law takes precedence over Statute Law.

The principle of Common Law is to protect the freedom of the individual. Lord Denning (1899-1999) was one of Britain’s most eminent judges and he had written:

“In the English way of life, the freedom of the individual must not be impaired except so far as absolutely necessary. In the totalitarian way of life, the freedom of the individual must always give way to the interests of the State.” He also said: “What matters in England is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full: and the only duties which should restrict this freedom are those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same.”

The laws of England became the laws of Australia with the arrival of a British Fleet in 1788. This arrival occurred because, in 1775, the American war of independence commenced which meant that Britain was not able to transport its convicts over there and 1779 began looking for other places suitable to establish a convict settlement. The British government eventually settled upon Botany Bay in Australia, having been surveyed in 1770 by Captain James Cook, as a potentially suitable place and in 1787 eleven ships carrying over 1500 men, women and children comprising soldiers, freemen and convicts, left Portsmouth for Australia, a journey of 252 days covering over 24 000 kilometres, arriving at Botany Bay on the 20th of January 1788.

The fleet then moved to Sydney where, on January the 26th, Governor Arthur Phillip raised the British flag on Australian soil and with that action, the principles of British law and British democracy became the law in what was to become known as Australia.

The laws of England developed differently from the laws of Europe. In the 5th century AD, England was invaded by the tribes we call Anglo Saxons from what is now northern Germany and Denmark. These regions had not been conquered by the Romans and thus did not fall under Roman law. Therefore, as English law developed along its own pathway into Common and Statute law, European countries developed their own codes based on Roman law.

This means that English courts developed the ‘adversarial system’ where the judge acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defence with the aim of getting to the truth through the open competition between the lawyers for both parties, whereas most European countries maintained the ‘inquisitorial system’ where the judge is actively involved in determining the conduct of the trial, deciding what witnesses to call, the order in which they are to be heard and also questioning them directly.

The United Kingdom faced a great problem when it became deeply entrenched into the European Union through various treaties it signed. Under the British constitution the laws of the United Kingdom are sovereign and its courts are independent but according to the Treaty of Rome (1957) it (the EU) and its laws are superior to all laws of individual nation states. This created a conflict which was never really resolved and will continue to be a problem even though the UK has now departed from the European Union. However, that conflict had no relevance in Australia where its laws remained intact.

In the 19th century, as the British settlement in Australia expanded and populated new areas, the central government in London created new colonies and then parliaments to govern them, beginning in 1823 with the New South Wales Act 1823 (UK), although retaining power through the governors who were appointed by and were representatives of the British government.

As Australia developed into a vibrant and prosperous country, it was still not a nation but a group of six separate colonies. In 1889 the UK Government commissioned Major-General Edwards to report on the defence of the Australian colonies as there were fears of invasion by Germany or Russia. The closest major British defence force was in India which would have taken several months to mobilise and reach Australian shores. Accordingly, the Edward’s report called for the federation of the forces of all Australian colonies.

This led to a Federation Conference held in Melbourne in 1890 attended by representatives from all colonies. A series of constitutional conventions were held leading to the union of the Australian colonies into one nation under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in January 1901.

It should be noted that, whilst the authority and the impetus to federate into a sovereign nation was derived from the British parliament, the Australian Constitution was drafted by Australian delegates and voted upon in a series of referendums by all Australians who were eligible to vote at the time. This was in the spirit of freedom inherited by Australia from Britain and in this manner, Australia became entirely independent of governance from the British government and the British parliament.

Those Australians who drafted the Constitution together with those who voted for it did not want to hand any more power than necessary to politicians. Therefore, they opted to become a constitutional monarchy continuing under the Crown of the United Kingdom. This meant that the monarch of Great Britain became the monarch of Australia. However, the king or queen, as monarch of Australia, was subject to advice from the Australian government and not from that of the United Kingdom. This was in line with the spirit of freedom the British bestowed upon Australia.

Pictured left is a photograph taken of some of the delegates to the Australiasian Federation Conference of 1890.

Of course, there were instances in which the law and the spirit of freedom were not upheld as they should have been. The independent way of life hitherto enjoyed by the Aboriginal natives was curtailed. The tracks they used for foraging and hunting were taken over by white settlers and many injustices were done which can never be undone.

The King, George III, and his government issued Governor Philip with instructions on the 25th April 1787 to “live in amity and kindness with” the Indigenous population. An extract from these Instructions can be found overleaf.

Whilst the colonial governments, in the main, attempted to abide by the tenor of these instructions, it did not prevent the native population being moved out of their traditional lands. However, today, all Australians are now considered equal one to another. All, whatever their colour, their religion or their social standing or whether they are rich or poor, have the same rights under the law. All are free and all those of age, can vote.

Whilst nothing is perfect, we all have the right to speak out, to lobby politicians or to challenge the government through the courts and, when the time comes, make our feelings known via the ballot box at an election. The past can never be undone but we can all work together towards a better future.

It should always be remembered that the Crown, which is at the heart of the Australian Constitution, is not like a magic wand that will be automatically waved to block errant governments from legislating to curtail the freedom of the people. No. The Crown under our system of constitutional monarchy is there to ensure that individuals have the right to stand up against any intrusion of their rights under the law either by way of peaceful protest, by appealing through the law or by the ballot box at election. However, if the people sit back and allow their liberty to be curtailed, then it will be. It is up to each Australian, whether born here or naturalised, to protect his or her individual rights. Rights which have been hard won over centuries of conflict.

END

MEDIA RELEASE: Republicans reject latest Ipsos poll.

The ARM has rejected the latest poll conducted by Ipsos because it shows a marked decline in support for a republic. They have, instead, pointed to last year’s YouGov poll which showed better results for them. However, the Australian Monarchist League claims that the question asked in the YouGov poll was particularly slanted to produce a higher republican vote whereas the Ipsos poll asked plain and simple questions.

Monarchists have responded that “it is typical of republicans to reject out of hand a poll which has shown a decline in support for them rather than learning from it to better their performance which is what we have always tried to do.”

The Ipsos poll indicated public support at only 34% but with 26% undecided. Ipsos director Jessica Elgood said that it showed the lowest recorded support for a republic by Ipsos and Nielsen polls since 1979.

Ms Elgood also said that “former US president Donald Trump had not made a presidential system a particularly appealing prospect for most of Australia.” However, Peter FitzSimons said “I don’t accept that poll … we have been getting phenomenally strong support.” He mentioned that that support had grown by 19% and that “The other factor is that we’ve been very active in things like social media, we are getting far more professional.”

The Australian Monarchist League has been active in social media for many years and has completely digitised its Internet and social media operations and has seen a 40% increase in signups over the past six months. For over 10 years many of the League’s operations have been handled by young people with a number of its spokespersons being under 30 years of age. For instance, the Age newspaper had carried comments about the poll by Jeremy Mann, a 19 year old university student and AML official and spokesperson. Jeremy also appeared on WIN TV.

In the interview, Jeremy was quoted as saying “The ill-considered push for a republic in Australia has completely lost its momentum due to the growing popularity of the royal family, especially amongst young people and new Australians, it is evident that the majority of Australians are more than content with keeping with our current system of constitutional monarchy, which has provided stability and accountability since the foundation of our great nation.“

The fact is that there is little interest in a republic nowadays and the general public have many more important issues to be concerned with. A reason why many people support the League is because it has always been truthful and factual and doesn’t attempt to lure people in with childish adverts and blatant misinformation.

The League anticipates support for the monarchy to increase dramatically over the next year with the Queen’s 95th birthday occurring on the 21st of April 2021 and the Duke of Edinburgh’s 100th birthday on June the 10th this year and the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrating 70 years on the throne occurring on the 6th of February 2022.

It will be an opportunity for all people, whatever their political preferences, to honour the Queen for a lifetime of service.

Liberty Newsletter January 2021

Liberty Newsletter January 2021