Home Australia An ANZAC Day Puzzle: Should the Monarch of Oz Be Australian-Born?

An ANZAC Day Puzzle: Should the Monarch of Oz Be Australian-Born?


    (L) no introduction needed   (R) book cover of “Australians All”

by Mary W Maxwell

This article is mainly about the role of the monarch in Australia. Although I have long been a monarchist, I now say it is absurd for the monarch of Australia to be simultaneously the monarch of a foreign country. If Oz is to have a monarchical government, the person in the role should be Australian. The whole royal family ought to look like a bunch of Aussies.

Many societies have a king; some do not. There were no kings in early human society and in the last few centuries some republics got formed by specifically eschewing monarchy.

Royalty Defined

How to define royalty? A good circular definition is that the person occupying the throne in a given country is royal. It is the person whom society allows to be the big authority.

It has proved convenient to the continuity of the king’s rulership to say that when he dies his first-born son will automatically take over.

According to anthropologist Pierre van den Berghe, the origin of village chieftainship may have been, simply, polygamy. A man may obtain more than one wife through the having of some personal talent, wealth, or prestige. Once he has multiple wives he also has multiple brothers-in-law.

A big clan is a recognizably strong force – it has many people loyal to its preservation. It also means more “soldiers” to fight anyone who may be a rival to the dynasty.

I am guessing that the chief, having the title “Chief,” would soon enjoy some ceremonious recognition of his greatness. Why? Because we like to do that. We want to feel special about our tribe. We enjoy those moments of togetherness, such as singing the national anthem. It is goose-bump-engendering. Yay goose-bumps!

The British Empire and Us

In the thousand years after Christ, the British Isles had an ethnic group known as the Celts, of which the prominent section in England was the Britons. (Which is why we Down Under are sort of Brit-ish.)

There was a Saxon invasion in the Dark Ages, possibly as early as 500CE.  “Seed” was also left by invading Vikings, Romans, and pirates of the Barbary Coast.  Really we “British” are multicultural, or at least multi-gene.

In the famous year 1066, England’s king Edward (also known as Saint Edward the Confessor — yes a saint king!) died without an heir to the throne.

Oops. That led to competition, with the king of Normandy (French), and king of Norway, trying out for the part. In January 1066, a British man named Harold had been appointed king of England but nine months later in the Battle of Hastings he had to yield the crown to the winner of that Battle, the Norman William.

Quelle langue parlait Guillaume? Oui, you got it. Hence for the next 400 years French was spoken officially “in court”, a fact we rarely if ever hear mention of.

Fast forward a half-millennium to 1500s when John Dee (the surname Dee is Welsh), a scientist in the reign of Elizabeth I, did odd jobs such as to guard occult secrets and assist the development of an empire. In 1570 Dee wrote Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis.

The British East India Company rivaled — or was in cahoots with? — the Dutch East India trade. We were taught in school that Europeans simply had to get spices from such places as Indonesia, tea from Ceylon, etc. Right?

By the way, Australians are generally not taught that New Holland was the name given to our continent in 1644 by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman (1603-1659), long before the arrival of Captain Cook. In 1788 Cook claimed the eastern half of New Holland as British, giving it the name New South Wales.

Australia’s Monarchy

Children in the US are taught that Americans revolted against George III. It would be more correct, of course, to say that the British settlers in the American colonies revolted; there were no “Americans” until that took place. The break-out is documented in the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

Did Aussies similarly revolt?  No, but they gradually cut ties with the mother country. Clearly they did not revolt against the occupant of the British throne, as even today the occupant of the British throne, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is also the queen of Australia.

By the way, the queen is the only member of the royal family who is royal in Australia. The consort and children of the queen have no status with the Australian Constitution. True, her first-born, Charles, the Prince of Wales, is slated to become king of Australia one day, but today he is not a privileged person here, legally speaking

Oz Has Cut the Apron Strings, Somewhat

From the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 to the Federation of Australia on January 1, 1901, we were a British colony – the same as Canada, India, British Guyana in South America, and so forth. (India, until 1947, was called “British India” – isn’t that a scream? — but it didn’t seem a scream at the time.)

In 1901 Australia became independent – sort of.  The Constitution shows that we are to be governed by a parliament. What? Not governed by the monarch? Umm. It’s confusing. The queen herself “sits in parliament.”

Take your minds off the Governor General for a while, as that causes us to be reminded of our Head of State’s ceremonial role. Just consider the monarch’s place in the Constitution. As everyone knows, a bill passed by both houses of parliament does not come into force until it receives “the royal assent.”

In the Constitution, Chapter 1 “The Parliament – General” says:

Section 1- Legislative Power

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives….”

Section 2 – Governor-General

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

And we also find in Section 58 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT

Royal Assent to Bills

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure.

Recommendations by Governor-General

The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

My Personal Prejudices

Before continuing I’d like to say why I have been a monarchist (as you may wonder, since I am often tooting off about my nation of birth — the US’s republic is something for which my admiration is unbounded).

The reasons are two. First, I see the monarch in Oz, at least in theory, as the people’s go-to person. Never mind that people don’t in fact go to her – they could.

Second, during the so-called debate for an Australian Republic back in 1998, I was aghast at the way persons – in this modern day and age – were talking as though the changing of the details of government would have any effect on politics.

I think Australians are horribly wedded to the idea that to be a parliamentarian is a “career” and that pollies will be pollies. A change in that culture would be far more effective than a technical change from a constitutional monarchy to a res publica.

So Who Is Australian and Who Isn’t?

As confirmed by the Nationality Act of 1920, Australians were British subjects.  There was no “Australian citizenship.” (Isn’t that amazing?). However, after WWII many Europeans immigrated here – such as displaced persons and the 10-pound-passage people – so it became necessary to set up the rules of Aussie citizenship. This was done by 1948 legislation.

Until then any Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman, or Northern Irishman, could enter Australia without question. In the other direction, anyone born in Oz could still have a British passport (if they wished) and could move to the UK unhindered.

My argument in this article is that the Australian monarch should be an Australian. There are key court cases having to do with whether the UK is a “foreign country.”

At Parliament’s website pah.gov.au we read:

In Taylor (2001)(1) and Te and Dang (2002),(2) three judges maintained that while at the time of Federation Britain was not a ‘foreign power’ and British subjects were not ‘aliens’ under Australian constitutional law, this position did not survive Australia’s emergence as an independent sovereign nation.

Other judges argued that British subjects who settled in Australia by the 1970s or 1980s shared allegiance with Australians to a common monarch, and so could not be ‘aliens’ under Australian law. Instead they were part of a new category of ‘non-alien non-citizens’ outside the scope of the detention and deportation provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (Cwlth).

…In Te and Dang, the High Court agreed that the word ‘alien’ was a constitutional not a legislative concept, and that it was for the Court itself not Parliament to define its meaning although Parliament could make laws prescribing who would come within this term. There was also agreement on the basic dictionary meaning of ‘alien’, i.e. ‘a foreigner’ or ‘one born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalisation and is not entitled to the privileges of a citizen’.

Can a Foreigner Be a Parliamentarian?

Section 44 of the Constitution says that certain persons

“shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”

One thing that can disqualify him is if he:

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power….

The case of a woman elected to Australia’s parliament came before the High Court in 1999: Sue v Hill.  The Court issued this order:

(1) Answer the questions reserved in each stated case as follows:

(a) Does s 354 of the Act validly confer upon the Court of Disputed Returns jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the Petition?

Answer: Yes

(b) Was the first respondent at the date of her nomination a subject or citizen of a foreign power within the meaning of s 44(i) of the Constitution?

Answer: Yes

(c) Was the first respondent duly elected at the Election?

Answer: No

In short, Mrs Hill did not get a chance to be a parliamentarian.

What about Her Maj?

In Sue v Hill, Her Majesty did not get discharged from Parliament for being a foreigner. Perhaps technically she should. At least it would be conceivable for a Court to rule that the monarch described in section 1 of the Constitution can be Australian.

I repeat Section 1 of Chapter 1:

“The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives….”

Earlier I said please take your eyes off of the Governor-General’s ceremonial role. Now I say please put your eyes on it. The ceremonial role of the queen or her Representative in Australia is an important mechanism for arousing emotions. All people love their traditions – it has a uniting effect.

Also, the solemnity of the job makes the incumbent seem holy. Thus it goes against our instinct of religious reverence to think twice about the Queen or the G-G.

The British queen, or king, has an enormous amount of pomp available. An Australian-born king or queen would have to make do with whatever traditions are native to Oz, including Aboriginal ceremonies and customs.

I think that could prove very healthy.

— Mary W Maxwell landed here in 1980. Thought Waltzing Matilda was the national anthem.





  1. Tuesday is ANZAC Day. We have some articulate veterans among our readers. If they send me a few paragraphs (or even just one sentence), We will be happy to combine them into a piece for Tuesday publication along the lines of “How I feel about Anzac day.”

    • mm Blood on the Wattle
      Dee a response to your request: perhaps you could include something on the Frontier Wars. Find information
      Frontier Wars March- Canberra
      Sovereign Union – First Nations Asserting Sovereignty
      Asserting Australia’s First Nations Sovereignty into Governance
      “We need to keep identifying that there has been warfare; that blood has been spilt on the wattle; and there is an ongoing war of attrition against Aboriginal Peoples to this day.”
      The global massacres the genocide that are not included in our history books or covered by media need to be recognised.

      • Diane de Vere – I request you provide some evidence of those ‘genocides’ and ‘massacres’ you so freely bandy about without any reference to such occurrences.

        Thank you in advance.

        • I will forward a copy of my book when it is published- soon I hope -it is well referenced. In the meantime there is a wealth of evidence about these massacres freely available just google something like mass murder genocide Australian Aborigines or check out some documentaties. First Australians. Frontier Wars

          • For those who bandy.
            A 2002 Amazon review, by Michael Knight, of the book “Blood on the Wattle.”
            “This book was a savage indictment of the white settlement of Australia. The details of the massacres are so unrelenting as to render the reader numb with disbelief that such behaviour could be perpetrated by so-callled civilised man.

            “My only criticism of this treatise is that Mr Elder fails to accept that the very same reasons that made the Aboriginal people innocent also applied to the perpetrators of the massacres. A white person taught that to steal a loaf of bread could lead to 7 years transportation was unlikely to react well to an aboriginal group taking and slaughtering cattle for food. It was often a case of the brutalised doing the brutalising.

            “Mr Elder also brushes off the (admittedly extremely rare) massacres of whites by aboriginals as being basically “brought upon themselves” even in cases where he has no particular evidence (ie when the settlers had just arrived and were building their camp). Horrible reprisals on the parts of other whites does not reduce the horror of the original act.

            “Don’t get me wrong. These really are minor complaints. Overall, this is a well written book and the inclusion of previously unrecorded massacres from aboriginal oral histories is an important addition to what would otherwise be a list of the stories that white Australia recorded, which were of course written mostly by the people who perpetrated and therefore were apologists for the original acts.”

            (Diane, I know you realize that my essay here about an Aussie monarch has nothing to do with the subject of the massacres. I also thank you — or curse you? — for telling me not to quit — as I sure do feel like quitting. So I say the same to you, regarding your efforts on behalf of education in NT and in protest of cruelty at DonDale detention centre. You go, girl. Tell ’em, tell ’em.)

            And I know your life is in danger.

          • Diane, maybe I should send you a book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History by Keith Windschuttle, with which to balance your own view of real Australian history?

            You have used the following words in some or all of your comments on this thread which really concerns the Monarchy and ANZAC Day, and is a topic that has nothing at all to do with Aboriginal history or the allegations you wish to raise here.

            ‘Massacres, mass murder, genocide, frontier wars, warfare, war of attrition, global massacres’ – I am surprised there is no ‘invasion’ thrown in there as well – as descriptive words that have little or no relation to actual recorded history via government agents or people like Dame Daisy Bates, who spent more than 20 years detailing the life of the Australian Aborigine.

            Perhaps you might even strain your intellect to check out the Lutheran Missions and how they rescued a dying race from extinction?

            I should remind you here that folklore or the words of elders has no standing in a court of law that deal only in fact based evidence, yet you readily accept hearsay as verifiable proof of white man’s wrong doings.

            You cite Bruce Elder’s work, Blood on the Wattle, as some kind of authoritative account when many who have reviewed this book think otherwise – perhaps you should read some of their reviews. Bruce Elder is what I would term a history revisionist and working for the Sydney Morning Herald is no real recommendation for his balanced view of anything other what his Left wing political views dictate.

            I really do not appreciate people like you who believe everything they hear because it happens to fit in with their view of the world and how it should operate, but my anger rises further with people who choose to use ANZAC Day to attack Australian history by attempting to besmirch our traditions with unproven allegations largely based on hearsay.

            I do agree that there have been massacres in the past and one that I am very familiar with is the Myall Creek Massacre of the 1840s. Myall Creek is an area of shallow lakes north of the town of Maitland. It was there during those years that a whole tribe of Aborigines were wiped out by seven male settlers who were later hanged for that crime.

            But those events I am familiar with were recorded in document form that has far more standing as historical evidence than hearsay or folklore.

            Your reference to genocide; I can tell you that if the white man had set out to cause the genocide of the Aborigine there would be none left alive today. And, if you wish to prove your point about ‘frontier wars’ perhaps you could provide some examples of your research instead of pointing to a book full of mostly baseless allegations?

            Your reference to Nations; There are no, and there were no Aboriginal Nations – the Aboriginal was spread out across this continent in diverse tribes that did not recognize ownership of personal possessions or territory, only their custodianship of the land that they lived upon. A people who cannot recognize the simple concept of ownership have no claim to a nation.

            They were often at war over women or other tribal conflicts over whatever mattered at the time. They practised infanticide, usually by burying alive the unwanted newborn, and the female from the age of menstruation was the property of the elder with whom he did with as he pleased.

            And the above paragraph is an indication of just some of what Daisy Bates noted.

            You readily champion what you believe happened way back when based on some verifiable documentary proof that then leads you accept other unverifiable accounts as actual events without any evidence at all that they actually occurred. That is dishonest thinking set to a political agenda of history revisionism.

  2. Mary, I cannot speak for today’s educational policies, but during my time in primary and high school we were taught that Australia was indeed formally known as “New Holland” and the reason why.

    In paragraph, “My Personal Prejudices” First, I see the monarch in Oz, at least in theory, as the people’s go-to person.”
    Unfortunately this is not so, as I personally have found out. After trying to correspond directly with the Governor General without success, I attempted to organise an appointment with said person and was refused, outright.

    So much for the position of Governor General supposedly being a safety valve for our “democratic system”.

    • Hang on, dear Mal. You are saying the BEHAVIOR of the go-to person was not good. I agree. I have seen your [Elvis] letters, and their replies — or more often their lack of reply. Shame on those addressees.

      Similarly, you and I and Dee wrote jointly (and politely) to the Gov of Tas asking for a pardon for Bryant and did not even earn a bed bug letter. SHAME ON PROFESSOR OF LAW KATE WARNER, the vice regal of Tasmania. SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME.

      There, Mal, you’ve got me that riled up. Thank you for making me say what I had been suppressing.

      P.S. I apologize that I got the New Holland bit wrong. I bow to your relevant experience. When I first saw a map of Oz with the word Nova Hollandia on it I was shocked, but that’s cuz I did not go to Elementary in this country.


  3. Have he people read Senator Rodney Culleton’s letter to the PM and other (alleged) criminals found here at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2T0ljNE1NeXFmR28/view. Here are the beginnings of that letter:



    Date: 23rd March 2017

    The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia

    The Hon. Senator Stephen Parry, President of the Senate

    The Hon. Tony Smith MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives

    The Hon. Senator George Brandis, Attorney General
    Parliament House

    Canberra ACT 2600

    To Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP, Senator Parry, Senator Brandis & Mr Tony Smith MP,
    It has come to my attention that referendums that should have been conducted, have been omitted and consequently our constitution, the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901, has been under attack. Since my purported ejection from the Senate, my research into my defence has had me uncover the consequences of omitting referendums, which have resulted in alleged criminal acts by Commonwealth Officials, and they are now going to be revealed to all Australian electors and my Western Australian constituents, in the contents of this document. For me to keep this new evidence a secret, would mean that I would be breaking my oath that I gave to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, the Commonwealth and all Australians.

    As you are aware, the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 is a United Kingdom Act; from clauses 1-8 plus the Schedule is the United Kingdom portion, and clauses 9-128 is the Australian
    portion of the act, and on that basis, no court (High Court) or Parliament within Australia can interfere with this United Kingdom act, as they have no jurisdiction to do so.

    The most well known challenge in relation to section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 (Disqualification) was Sue vs Hill [1999] HCA 30. Senator Hill, another One Nation senator, was removed as a parliamentarian without the senate abiding by section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 and discussing Sue’s petition in the Senate and then by resolution sending the dispute to the Court of Disputed Returns at that time. Three High Court justices stated that under the constitutional process, the matter should have been referred by the Senate and the other four High Court justices disregarded that statement and ruled that the United Kingdom was a foreign power. I therefore believe that this particular ruling is beyond
    the power of the High Court and a constitutional breach, due to the United Kingdom being the legal owner of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901.

    Page 2
    I state this because since finding out that the Queen has been removed from certain acts, without a referendum, and as confirmed by Senator Brandis and the High Court Rules Committee when they had to reinstate the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second in their rules, their validity to sit and rule on my matter, is now under challenge. I am further questioning why the Senate, did not invoke their power as the highest court in the land, as granted to it by section 47 Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901, and deal with my matter when it became evident that the High Court was temporarily out of order and Senator Brandis had prior knowledge since 12th September 2016.

    The people of Australia are noticing and feeling the injustices taking place in this country and they have certainly watched my story play out in the courts and through the media. Professors of Law have even publicly stated that the High Court ‘got it wrong’ and due to the handling of my cases, many people now believe that justice has been perverted in Australia.

    As elected members of your respective constituents, and duly accountable to such and parliamentary leaders of our nation, I am respectfully requesting that you have a look at all material facts surrounding my purported removal from the Senate, in doing so placing me in the capacity of ‘senator in exile’. The critical material facts, yet to be fully disclosed, must now become a matter of public interest and in particular to the electors of the Australian public, both State and Commonwealth.

    To read more of this 15 page letter go to this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2T0ljNE1NeXFmR28/view

    • Section 47:
      “Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.”

      • I start with I am not a monarchist.. A question Mary–where did you come across the book Australians All–and why did you display it in this article? Also please check out Michael Anderson Ghillar; Sovereign Union website for an education about this countries true history.
        He is Head of State of the Euahlayi Nation recognised by HM Queen of England.

        • re book Australians All- Nadia Wheatley Ken Searle

          “Wheatley includes a special note for parents and educators outlining her interest in representing the “forgotten” people of the historical narrative, those neglected because they were at the “bottom of the social pyramid”. Children, like Indigenous people and women, have fallen squarely into this category.”

          Maybe those at the top of the pyramid should be made to study this book and all politicians tested on the contents as a precursor to their right to represent the citizens of this country —if they fail the test they hould be sent back to where they came from and give up their right to citizenship.–arrghh

          i asks who controls the curriculum and the education we drip feed our children. I know the answer to this and dispair.

  4. It looks to me that “the queen” in the 1901 Constitution, who was then Victoria, could be anyone.

    Surely I’m wrong? I am saying that it would not require a referendum to place an Aussie onto the throne of Oz.

    Smarties, pls correct me. I will eat crow as needed. Also please tell me, after Victoria died, did they change the word Queen to King in the Aus Constitution, up until 1952?

    I dinna notice things in the 1940s. Frankly I was on the bottle.

    • An early drinker eh Mary? LOL.

      Queen or King is simply the title that represents the Monarch.

      I would much prefer a constitutional republic along the same model as the American Republic – we have a head start already over the British Monarchy on that, if one takes into account that our ‘parliament’ consists of a Senate and a House of Reps, not too mention, our Constitution, that while a mere shadow of the American Constitution it is based on, is nevertheless firmly on the road to be able to copy it.

      To my own knowledge there are three very important stages in the evolution of the West that resulted in political upheaval to the betterment of the common man and woman.

      1. Magna Carta – a document that removed the divine right of the Monarch and the Monarch’s summary forms of justice.

      2. The English Bill of Rights – a document following the English Civil war and the removal of the English Parliament to arbitrarily making law without taking into account the English Bill of Rights.

      3. The American Constitution – a document that instilled into every man and woman natural inalienable rights from God and as apart from those laws that parliaments enact and governments tend to use to lord it over the populace.

      Any change to our Australian Constitution must be done via referendum, although one E. G. Whitlam tinkered around the edges to suit his ‘Queen of Australia’ ideal while he also removed the sovereign right of the people to receive direct protection from the Monarchy.

      Have a think about that one and as to why that section was removed without our approval.

      There are two Australian Constitutions – the original – before Whitlam got to it, and the one that is now used as our basic law of the land document. In my humble opinion, the Australian constitution – put into effect without any input at all from the Australian public – does not adequately provide any protection at all for Australian citizens who wish to speak openly when matters concern them greatly. And on that, one only need to pay attention to how those are now treated who choose to speak out against the Islamization of this country.

      Our Constitution is weak and needs to be strengthened.

      • The “Islamization” of Australia mirrors the “christianisation” of the Roman Empire: in both cases there’s a failure to understand that ingesting a weak/corrupt version of something doesn’t necessarily ensure an immunity toward the original.

        • Berry. The Roman Church is an almost virtual copy of the old Roman Empire that simply ingested the spread of true Christianity – as in the teachings from Christ – and perverted it for its own use.

          What we have today is but a poor reflection of what true Christianity is about – and there is no need for Churches or practises organized by vested interests into herding the populace through a belief system if one believes in Christ and what he taught.

          Islam is the complete anathema to true Christianity that at this point in time is not making inroads into Western civilization due to a decline in Church attendance, but because Islam is being aided and abetted through an agenda that is designed to replace the White European whose ingrained individuality has no room in the New World Order the Globalists are attempting to create.

          • “Multi-culturalism” is, in actuality, a euphemism for a few
            controlling the many. It has nothing to do with tolerance.

          • Berry. No Nation can embrace Multiculturalism if it wishes to remain a nation and not become a country of tribes all vying for top dog status.

            Only us silly Westerners have allowed our elites to impose such a destructive force onto us without any kind of resistance.

            Political Correctness is MC’s fascist enforcer that is designed to control the Western native population only.

            The Soviets perfected the system over 70 years, so now it’s our turn.

  5. It’s too bad Mary, that you have approached this subject in the time that you have.
    Unfortunately, the Australians who were staunch Monarchists DIED at Gallipoli and during WW 2, in particular, New Guenea and Singapore/ Malaya.
    All these veterans were staunch Monarchists and thus volunteered their lives for the cause.
    Unfortunately, the Monarchists did not feel the same way, nor did they appreciate the sacrifice of their Colonial minions, who so thoughtlessly threw their lives away with such abandon, believing whole heartedly their British masters would do the right thing by them all.
    How did that work out for them ??????????
    They came home really pissed off and seriously disalusioned, disgusted would be a better word, feeling massively betrayed by the people they volunteered their lives for.
    During the 60’s and 70’s, there were very few Australians indeed, who thought highly of the Brits, or “their” Monarchy, in fact that’s when the push came to divorce ourselves from them for good, something I too, support whole heartedly.
    With the demise of these veterans and their wives over the years, the feelings and views of the Monarchy by Australians also, seemed to decline, because there were fewer and fewer people around to pass on the reality of how they were treated by the Brits, simply as cannon fodder.
    The Brits and the Monarchy ABANDONED Australia to the Japanese, without a thank you, or even a bye your leave.
    Australians turned to the Yanks to replace their misguided trust in the Monarchy and the Brits, thus learned nothing from their experiences.
    Now that the veterans are all dying off, there are few people left to pass on the personal experiences of that period, and the history books are hidden, never brought to light, with alternative history being taught to sustain whatever the agenda of the day is.
    I personally, see no need for anyone to Lord it over the Australian population, we have enough on our table with the IDIOTS in Canberra and their Masters in Washington.
    Let’s not forget too, the Queen is the richest woman on the planet and has never done a days work in her life, (Globe trotting around the World at taxpayer’s expense, waving at the peasants, is not in my opinion, work )neither does she support any charities or the less off, thus showing by example, what they think of the “lower classes”. The money she earns from her investments, come from Australian companies which B.T.W. PAY very little tax, IF ANY, to the ATO. thus short changing every Australian.
    My personal view ??? The French did the right thing, with their Royalty as did the Russians.
    A POX on all so called “Royalty”.

      • Yo Keep on trying Mary-you’re providing a great service–Educaton is the Key-information sharing-open hearts and minds Healing teaching and Learning–never ever give up–

        Blood On The Wattle –
        Massacres and Maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788
        By: Bruce Elder
        Blood on the Wattle draws together, in a single volume, most of the information about the massacres of Aboriginal people which has been recorded in books and journals. It also creates a broad-based level of awareness of the scale of the massacres of Aboriginal people so that this dimension of Australian history can become part of the Australian consciousness. 

About the Author

Bruce Elder is an award-winning journalist and writer who has been involved in the writing of more than 50 books, including the Macquarie Dictionary and The A – Z of Who is Who in Australia’s History. He is a journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald specialising in travel and popular culture.

        • Also a more gentle read “When the Wattles Bloom” is a book by Shirley Wiencke. It’s about the life and times of William Barak who was born about 1823 to the Wurundjeri clan, a group of the Woiwurrung people. The title refers to Barak’s prediction that he would die when the wattles bloomed. He saw a lot of the history of the early times of the Port Phillip settlement. He was a witness to the signing of the Batman treaty. His father was a Ngurungaeta, an Elder, of the Woiwurrung people and was a signatory to the document.

          Perhaps we need a Ngurungaeta -a wise elder to be Head of State

    • Eddy, I agree mostly with your sentiments, but may I suggest you read Les Carlyon’s epic tome, The Great War, if you wish to understand the time and the place of the first Australian ANZACs and what drove them to incur 60,000 dead and over 160,000 wounded – the highest casualty rate per head of population for any Western nation whose soldiers fought the Great War.

      And who many forget today were all volunteers to a man.

      There has been much hype, particularly from the political activity of the Left who have used the ANZACs for their own political purposes over the decades to denigrate whatever they feel needs to be changed or altered to suit their own ideology.

      So much of what is put out as public fodder to feed off by the so called establishment is just plain wrong, and needs to be called out for the disinformation that they have been peddling for a long, long time.

  6. Everyone knows the first verse of “God Save the Queen,” but here are some more verses that may surprise you:

    O Lord our God arise/ Scatter her enemies
    And make them fall/ Confound their politics
    Frustrate their knavish tricks/ On Thee our hopes we fix
    God save us all…

    Not in this land alone/ But be God’s mercies known
    From shore to shore/ Lord make the nations see
    That men should brothers be/ And form one family
    The wide world over. [Well, son of a gun!]

    From every latent foe, / From the assassins blow,
    God save the Queen!/ O’er her thine arm extend,
    For Britain’s sake defend,/ Our mother, prince, and friend,
    God save the Queen!

  7. « An ANZAC Day Puzzle: Should the Monarch of Oz Be Australian-Born?
    No, No, No, No, No, No,No, No, No,No, No, No,No, No, No,

    Should the Monarch of Oz Be Australian-Born?
    No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No,

    The Australian Commonwealth Constitution is at deaths door as it is. The entire infringement system has all but over turned the presumption of innocence and the right not to incriminate oneself. Invoking these rights is now seen as evidence of guilt.

    Section 8 subsection 12 of the imperial acts Application Act which says that all fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void (in both the Constitution and in the Bill of rights of 1668.

    The infringement system has carried us to the point where accusation (speed camera photo) is proof of guilt.

    Anyone who claims anything from the “Australian Government” is now in private law and in the main, outside of the constitution

    No law passed by the “Australian Government” or the states is legal because none of them have been given royal assent by the Queen via the GG, as is required by the section 58 of the Australian Constitution.

    I could go on but while the Australian constitution is on deaths door the powers that should not be could not resist the opportunity to kill off the constitution, once and for all as soon any opportunity came along to change the Australian Constitution.

    • Mary, a land where the various tribes had no concept of nationalism or even unity, and offered no resistance to those who arrived unannounced and without force, cannot be considered to have been invaded.

      What was then termed as New Holland was in fact an open land legally termed Terra Nullius that a bunch of black robed activists overturned on the most flimsiest of arguments.

      And that ‘decision’ created a huge nightmare out of all proportion for the numbers of people that decision supposedly represented. What is now known as Aboriginal Land Rights and welfare has become a huge financial drain on our country and has given rise to black activism that is out of all proportion to the history that they complain of.

      The original inhabitants of this land prior to white settlement, considered themselves as custodians only of the land that they dwelt on. There was no concept of ownership among the tribes of Aborigines, and that is just one reason for why they were prolific thieves – they could not comprehend that the possessor of anything on or about their person was also the legal owner of such things.

      You could learn much by simply looking up the First Fleet’s official ship’s log and reading the description of how the harbour natives actually turned their backs on the ships as they sailed toward their appointment with history.

      As a country that supplies the benefits to the Aboriginal industry that has grown up around Mabo, we have two choices, either we continue down the path we are now on until the money eventually dries up or we change tact as to how black Australians can be brought into the 21st Century – if they so choose to do so.

      Sit down money is destroying much of the black population and in my humble opinion, assimilation through forced education if necessary, is the only answer to the problem that has plagued this country since 1788.

      • Nemesis, invasion on Australia will continue — unannounced and without force. The “concept of ownership” allowed the present inhabitants of Australia to take over the land… but that very concept will be the demise of our great grand children.
        Seeing as Australians put such a focus on property prices and ownership… the migration to privatization continues (mostly by foreign entities) as Oz continues to “sell up”.

        It took a hundred years (or so) to completely colonize Australia from the original custodians to a land of “white ownership”.

        In another hundred years my guess is that Australia will be (like) a private corporation — run by a handful of people (once foreigners). In the 2011 census, 60% declared European ancestry. My guess is that white people will be down to 5 – 10% by then… and the concept of ownership will have resulted in the selling off of almost everything to those who have the licence to print money. And the concept of ownership will have been replaced.

        The take over of Australia will have been complete (through the concept of ownership) — and they new custodians will be renting everything (in a pay as you go system) to the new (micro-chipped) people of Australia.

        Re your comment: “Sit down money is destroying much of the black population and in my humble opinion,”
        In my humble opinion — “Sit down and watch your property price grow” is destroying much of the white population.

        We don’t make anything anymore — we rely on property to rise and be sold off. But that pyramid scheme goes no where.

        • Dee, it certainly appears that we are heading the way in which you describe at this current time in our devolution as a once nation state to the country of tribes we have now become.

          In just 50 years we have gone from a nation that made nearly everything it consumed and exported much of it, to one that is reliant on Asia, particularly China, for our consumables.

          We don’t even make light bulbs anymore – how backward have we become?

          My awareness of a Globalist agenda to cause all countries on this planet to come under the machinations of corporatism, via the United Nations and the other alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, secret societies and money lenders, began just after 9/11 when the continual replaying of those aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers triggered my inquisitiveness as to who was really controlling this planet.

          The promotion of the TPP dressed up as the Trans Pacific Partnership (all that evil packed into nice sounding words) would have virtually removed any control by our governments over this land over night upon the signing of it. Trump has done us all a huge service by not putting it into effect, his action saying much about our own federal government who were more than willing to sell us out once again to vested interests.

          Because of what I have learned I became a member of One Nation and fully support the efforts now in place to regain much of what we have had taken from us. We are in a fight for our self-preservation that has been under constant attack ever since 1788.

          It is going to be a long and hard fight – are you up for it?

      • I stand to be proven wrong, but I believe the term ‘Terra Nullius’ to be an invention by the left-wing black-armband crowd in the early ’70s, and without basis in law.

        • Johno, the term Terra Nullius is established Latin, a Roman Legal term meaning, ‘no one’s land’. Many of our laws today are derived from the Romans.

          What those activist High Court judges did was to take that term and denounce it as not applying to the origins of Australia – in other words, they turned the legal finding of Aboriginal ownership or claim to this land on its head.

          Your suspicion is partly correct.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion