Are we a nation of secret royalists? More than you think, says David Flint (unfortunately!)

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Professor David Flint, 84, has been national convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy for nearly three decades. I spoke to him on Thursday.

Fitz: Professor, so many questions, so little time. Are you surprised that the most influential republican in our land, Anthony Albanese, agreed to recite that absurd oath of allegiance thingammy in Westminster Abbey?

David Flint says there are “certainly more royalists there than you can see”.Credit: Jack Atley

DF: Not in the slightest. He’s been doing it for years, as a parliamentarian and minister.

Fitz: Meantime, from the republican viewpoint, I have taken heart from the lack of hoopla in Australia leading into this coronation. I do hope you are despairing?

DF: I agree there has been no displays of anything like that, and I think in some ways it is like the decline of religion, which is sad. But with the monarchy, people – and particularly Australian men – are less inclined to be public about it. For some men, maybe showing interest in the coronation would be like saying you were going to the ballet. Not manly enough.

Fitz: A nation of secret royalists?

DF: Certainly more royalists there than you can see.

Fitz: Professor, you must be very excited!

DF: I’m very interested. I think it’ll be a significant ceremony. We’ve only had eight since the settlement of Sydney in 1788, four since Federation. We’ll be waiting a long time for another. It is something that is particularly relevant to the constitutional system of Australia. Unlike 1953, I’ll be watching it with a sip of wine.

Fitz: And yet, you were once a republican!

DF: Never. Always a monarchist. But in my radical years when I was younger…

Fitz: Your what? Your “radical years”? Do tell?

DF: I was quite radical. Being radical wasn’t fashionable then. At Sydney University, Paddy McGuinness persuaded me to join the Labor Club in the late ’50s. We found it was dominated by Stalinists, so we left. Paddy then formed the ALP Club – we were founding members.

Fitz: And yet, tell us the story of what you did on November 11, 1975, when you heard of the dismissal, of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam…

Crowning glory: David Flint, right, celebrating the defeat of the 1999 referendum with David Elliott and Kerry Jones.Credit:

DF: The Sydney Institute’s Gerard Henderson never lets me forget this. I was a law lecturer. I joined a demonstration concerning the dismissal, marching in the streets of Sydney because I thought it was wrong, that it was in breach of constitutional practice.

Fitz: Bravo! How then, did you so badly lose your way as to become the leader of the monarchists a quarter-century later?

DF: [Laughs lightly.] Well, I grew up. Long ago, I reversed my assessment of the dismissal. There’s an old saying: anyone young who’s not a socialist has no heart. Anyone over 30 who’s still a socialist has no brain.

Fitz: David, you were 38 at the time you were marching in protest at the dismissal of Gough, and against the Queen.

DF: [Again, amused.] I must have been a slow learner. And I wasn’t against the Queen. The Queen wasn’t involved. And she didn’t even know about it before it happened. Kerr went out of his way not to involve her.

Fitz: The author Jenny Hocking who wrote the Palace Letters, certainly disagrees, and so do I, but moving on. How did you wind up with the ACM and the Libs?

DF: I’m a monarchist because I can see it is the best, most stable form of government. I didn’t join the Liberals until the later ’90s. It was over republicanism. I had gradually fallen out with the Labor Party in the early ’80s because it seemed more and more the party of the inner-city elites, and…

Fitz: The “elites”? One of your books was called Twilight of the Elites. Now please tell me, honestly – and I swear your answer will go no further than the Herald readership – is it not completely absurd for you and your fellow monarchists to stand in front of the gates of Buckingham Palace, with the royal family inside and shout at we unruly republicans as we approach, “get back, you elitists!”

DF: [Chuckles] The term “elites” comes from America and was used in academic circles to refer to intellectuals, particularly of the left, who impregnate the institutions of society with their ideas – the sort of people who always grab the latest dogmas coming out and promulgate them as if they were infallibly true.

Fitz: But what is the monarchy, if not an enduring dogma? Now, over lunch, you’ve previously been frank with me that the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy is – putting it kindly – not that big. I don’t say it’s three men and a dog, but it’s not much more than four men and a dog, is it?

DF: Well, during the referendum we had our own army of supporters, with a presence in every federal electorate. We had about 60,000 volunteering with us.

Fitz: Yes, but now? You’re talking to me, your longtime-some-time luncheon companion. When, honestly, did you have a gavel in your hand and say “I call this meeting to order for the Australians for the Constitutional Monarchy”?

DF: We do it every year in national conference.

Fitz: Yes, but these days do you honestly get more than a dozen? And is there anyone younger than 70?

DF: You came to one a few years ago for a debate with me chaired by a judge, Ken Handley. It’s on YouTube, a pretty full house. And the interesting thing is, a number of young people have come along. We’ve just appointed a group of them as young ambassadors for ACM. And the interesting thing is that there was an Ipsos poll within the last year or so, saying the largest age group with the strongest support for the constitutional monarchy were the young people, or at least they were stronger than people may have believed.

Fitz: That must have been a rogue poll because there was a poll last week saying 18 to 24-year-olds think the monarchy is on another planet and only 25 per cent of them think Charles represents their values.

DF: Depends on the question… there are polls, and there are polls…

Fitz: And they are sometimes poles apart… As you know, I live in hope that you will still come good on the republic, and the track record discussed above shows you can change positions on things. What about more recent times? You came out against same-sex marriage in 2017. Would it be fair to say honestly, now six years on, you got that wrong too, that we’ve now had same-sex marriage and everybody’s happy?

DF: Well, no, I think heterosexuals have reduced their attachment to the institution. It’s not as important to society as it once was.

Fitz: I entirely disagree, but even if that was the case, so what? It is obviously more important than ever to gay Australians who have been denied so long and have married in droves. Speaking of which, the contours of your own household are none of my damn business, but can we agree that you are yourself in a non-traditional relationship?

DF: [Laughs] You could say that, coming on to 60 years.

Fitz: And yet, you still spoke out against marriage equality?

DF: Constitutionally, Canberra only had the power to legislate in relation to traditional heterosexual marriage. If it were to be changed, it should be changed only by referendum. In my view, only the states could have brought in a class of gay marriage.

“He certainly doesn’t enjoy the same level of affection”: Flint on comparisons between Charles and the late Queen.Credit: Getty Images

Fitz: Sophistry, David. My wife and I have been married for 30 years and have certain rights when it comes to each other. You and your partner have been together for six decades! Why on earth should we have marital rights that you and your partner don’t?

DF: Because I say that the High Court was wrong in the ACT Case, that the federal parliament had no power to legislate on this. The Commonwealth should not have been poking its nose into such matters.

Fitz: All right, let’s go back to King Charles, and whether he has a long future as king. Even I, as a long-time chair of the ARM, will agree that Queen Elizabeth II was a serious brake on republican fervour in Australia because there was such an enduring affection for her personally.

DF: Could I interrupt you there and say, this is another subsequent myth by republicans such as those that John Howard rigged the referendum. The fact is, that at the time of the 1999 referendum, it was post the storm around Diana’s death, where the Queen was under attack. Unfairly, she went through a period of unpopularity. You might remember the ridiculous fuss over a half-mast flag over Buckingham Palace and the fact that the boys weren’t brought down from Balmoral immediately. The ACM director Kerry Jones told me that was the worst day she had in the office, with people calling up saying “we are tearing up our membership cards, and we will vote for a republic after the Queen behaved that way.” And yet, you still lost the referendum.

Fitz: Fair enough. But I can say with some authority that the enduring affection for the Queen was a real brake on republican progress in Australia.

DF: Yes, but only well after the referendum.

Fitz: So can you agree that your King Charles does not enjoy the same level of affection, and in my judgment, not even 25 per cent of that affection?

DF: We can agree he certainly doesn’t enjoy the same level of affection – even though he’s very keen on global warming.

Fitz: Now we’re getting somewhere! Is it not obvious then he will struggle in the role? Why is he so much less of a figure than the Queen?

DF: The Queen was impeccable. She never put a foot wrong. And Charles has had a messy divorce. Now many people have had divorces. But I think people expect their sovereign these days to be impeccable and lead in matters which can be broadly described as moral and social. And Charles didn’t just have a broken marriage – Diana was very popular, extraordinarily so. He suffered as a result of breaking it up.

Fitz: But here is the thing, David. In 70 years of her reign, I barely remember an angry voice being raised against her in public? And yet seemingly every time that Charles appears, people are shouting “Not my king!” – protesting, throwing eggs and all the rest. And the other day at a Scottish soccer match you had tens of thousands of supporters robustly singing “You can stick the coronation up your arse!” The Queen never had to face anything like that, that I recall.

DF: Well, this is the modern world, isn’t it? I mean these people are just seeking publicity that the UK organisation Republic loves. This isn’t an organisation which will have monarchists worried.

Fitz: Which may well be, David. But I might say that Charles not only doesn’t worry us republicans, the beginning of his reign gives us encouragement as never before! Thank you for your time.

DF: Thank you, Peter.

Quote of the week

“Hillary belongs in the White House. Donald Trump belongs on my show.” – Jerry Springer, who died this week, after watching a presidential debate in 2016.

Joke of the week

Jacko, from a farm just outside of Grenfell is married to the fine Esmeralda from Double Bay, who so adores him she can’t help but want to improve his English.

One day, when he asks her if he can invite his friend Billy over for dinner. “Don’t say Billy,” she chastises, “say ‘William’.”

After they eat dinner, he asks William if he can tell him a tale.

“Don’t say ‘tale’,” Esmeralda says, “say ‘anecdote’.”

When the farmer is about to go to bed, he realises that the kitchen light is still on. He asks Esmeralda to put the light out, and she shakes her head. “Don’t say ‘put out’,” she corrects, “say ‘extinguish’.”

Later that night there is a strange noise coming from outside. Esmeralda sends Jacko to check it out. When he returns, she asks him what it was.

“Well,” he starts, “it was a William goat who I grabbed by its anecdote and extinguished him!”

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article