Abdicating Australia's "throne"

By | | comments |

The news that the Queen of the Netherlands has decided to abdicate does not mean that the Queen of England will follow the same path, says senior correspondent Barry Everingham.

Queens Beatrix and Elizabeth II
Queens Beatrix and Elizabeth II

THE NEWS that the Queen of the Netherlands has decided to hand over to her son and go into retirement comes as no surprise.

Abdication is common in the royal house of Orange-Nassau — Queen Beatrix’s mother stood aside as did her mother.

The monarchists have been quick to quell the many calls for the Queen of England to make the same decision, blathering on that abdication is unknown in the German house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, now called the house of Windsor.

They have short memories; the Queen of England’s uncle, who became King Edward VIII on the death of his father – King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather – was forced to abdicate because of his love for a twice married American woman. The British Government of the day treated Edward in a most disgusting manner and his wife was denied all the rights, styles and titles which a woman normally receives when she marries.

The Queen of England is now 86 and still performs a myriad of what must be excruciating engagements. She does them well and seemingly without complaint — but I guess that’s what she’s paid to do.

After all, she is on the public payroll and is nothing more or nothing less than a public servant.

The Queen of England, of course, is denied to right to make a decision of her own; she is bound by the wishes of her prime minister of the day and, like any loyal public servant, must do his or her bidding.

A glaring example of this was made public when Tony Blair pulled rank on the queen following the death is Diana, Princess of Wales in Paris.

Blair insisted Diana be sent off in royal style and further demanded the queen return to London to face the fact that London, and most of what passes for the civilized world, expected her to be among her grief stricken people.

Blair, it seems, was responsible for saving the house of Windsor from an inglorious end —republicanism was rampant in those days.

Queen Beatrix’s decision can’t be equated to Australia.

We have a foreign queen, who is our absent head of state.

Beatrix will hand her throne to her eldest son – a Dutchman – who will remain in Holland.

In the unlikely event of Elizabeth abdicating her throne – or when she eventually dies still on the job – it will pass to her eldest son, will who become our head of state whether we like it or not — and of course the charade will go on.

Another foreigner preventing all Australians from attaining ‒ or even aspiring to attain ‒ this nation’s top job.

It will be interesting to how Australians will react to a man like Charles Windsor and his former mistress, now his wife, occupying “the throne of Australia”, as the monarchists so hilariously call the throne of England.

It is inconceivable that we Australians will tolerate this ridiculous situation, and the quicker we come to our senses and become our own nation the better.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Recent articles by admin
Strewth, Turnbull the Placebo Flamingo of Australian politics! Who knew?

Where's Malcolm Turnbull's ticker? Time for him to be a leader and deal with Abbott ...  
Dyson Heydon, #BorderFarce and Captain Abbott's last days in the Lodge

With the Dyson Heydon debacle and the Border Force farce, Team Australia Captain ...  
Barry Everingham: Support fearless independent journalism

Senior correspondent Barry Everingham says IA should be supported, because it has ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support IAIndependent Australia

Subscribe to IA and investigate Australia today.

Close Subscribe Donate