Why are Australian monarchists begging the British Government to give more money to one of the richest taxpayer subsidised families in the world, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan? What has it got to do with the "Australian monarchy"? Barry Everingham comments.
In one of his more extravagant rants, David Flint says the Queen should decide what happens to the enormous income from the Crown Estates — which he says she owns.
She doesn’t.
“Crown estates” are the property of the Government and, in fact, the money delivered to the Queen to prop up such an outdated, undemocratic system is an outrage.
And Flint should realise this is of no concern to Australia or Australians; had he been born here he would no doubt know that if one Australian cent went towards keeping the British monarchy in its cocoon of privilege there would be riots in the streets.
In fact – under the current Constitution – we spend millions of dollars annually on Elizabeth’s representatives in the States and Territories.
At least every man and woman representing the foreign monarch is an Australian, as apart from earlier vice regal representatives who were, in the main, chinless nobodies from the House of Lords.
And while Flint bleats away, he should remember that the British prime minister David Cameron made it clear to the Queen that the recent royal wedding would be hers to pay for — all the Government would do was provide security.
The Government in London controls the Civil List — it’s spent on most, but not all, members of the Queen’s family.
As an example, Prince Michael of Kent – a first cousin of the Queen’s – doesn’t get a cent; he married a Roman Catholic so he’s banned.
Under Australian law, if such a situation took place the Queen would be hauled before a civil court.
Kent and the Queen’s other cousins, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (the Duke of Kent is Michael’s brother) and Princess Alexandra of Kent get paid — mainly to open fetes and other mind-numbing pursuits.
Flint also points out that the Queen doesn’t get a huge superannuation payout — she doesn’t need one. She’ll die on the job.
She lives rent free in Buckingham Palace, but her own palace is Windsor Castle which was almost ruined in a fire a few years back. So out of touch was the monarch, she wanted the government to pay for its restoration — that just wasn’t an option and she was told so in no uncertain terms. Tourists now pay to see Buckingham Palace and that money goes towards what it costs to repair the Castle.
David Flint rather pompously points out that the 16 nations of which she is head of state – in the main, but with a few exceptions, Mickey Mouse outfits – don’t pay any money for the upkeep of the Queen or her family and only Flint would think they should.
C’mon Dave, do you seriously think they should?
And then he goes on about a would be president of the Republic of Australia and what his or her emoluments might be.
C’mon Dave, do you seriously think he or she should do the job for nothing?
Australian monarchists can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that the Windsor family represent nothing at all except themselves and what they have become makes them too absurd to be taken seriously.
And the younger generation are living for their own celebrity. They have no idea of their (sometimes) noble history — their present situations are confused and their futures dubious.
If the monarchy survives – and if the longevity genes continue – the Queen might well have another, say, 15 years on the throne, which will make Charles 75 when he gets the job and William 45. Now, if Charles has inherited the same genes as the Queen’s, he might be handing over to a 70 or so years old William…
Does any Australian really believe we’ll still be lumbered with this family when William inherits?
Seriously — are there any left out there who do?
