Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 33, No. 3 18 March 1970

Salient looks at — The Monarchy

page 12

Salient looks at

The Monarchy

By the time this feature is printed everyone (including our seditious selves) may have lost the ability to weigh argument sanely. Rationality may have been dissolved in a saccharine solution of blind sentiment and jingoistic hysteria engendered by the New Zealand media's reportage of Ducal quips, Royal informality, and instances of starving, but still loyal, pensioners standing in driving rain for hours in order "to catch a glimpse." Nevertheless we feel that the Royal Tour provides a good opportunity to examine the role of the Monarchy and the assorted paraphernalia which surrounds it.

There are those who claim that the Monarchy is above criticism and on these grounds seek to assert that no one should therefore even attempt to criticise. We could not disagree more. Ideally no institution should be universally accepted as valuable unless it can be proven to be so. This ideal notwithstanding, 'much of the fervour and sentiment reserved for the Crown seems to be unreasoned, irrational and based on false premises, if based on anything real at all.

It is obvious that the Monarchy, built on the concept of privilege by birth, strong in statute while weak in reality, fabulously wealthy in a society that knows poverty, is bewildering, awe-inspiring, contradictory and anomalous. For these reasons the question of the value of the Monarchy must, if we are to be at all rational, be an open one.

One of the most notable and perhaps most telling features of our preliminary research was that we found that while it was easy to find people willing to attack the Monarchy with what they considered to be rational argument, supporters of the institution were in short and silent supply. Many, it seems, are willing to stand and be counted only when the pointer rests, for one glorious moment, on their shoulder. We endeavoured, with some success, to draw on a community cross-section for the articles printed in this issue. Prince Charles was asked to contribute but felt disinclined to do so, (he did, however, "hope you will understand.") Sir Arthur Porritt felt roughly the same way (although he is very interested in receiving a copy of Salient.) Sir Leslie Munro was unable to prepare his contribution in time for publication. However, we hope to print his article later in the year.

Clive Thursby is a Commonwealth scholar with an English public school background, at present studying at Victoria. He attempts to discuss some of the sociological aspects of the Monarchy. The article by Colin McInnes, a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the honours system, is a reprint from 10 January 1963 issue of New Society. Alister Taylor went along to Parliament to interview the P.M. Did he get there? Make up your own mind—I believe him.

Bruce Jesson, the President of the New Zealand Republican Society, argues that the Monarchy and the sentiment which surrounds it is used to assist British neo-colonialism. He maintains that British businessmen, and indeed, the British Government, use the Monarchy (a form of moral blackmail if you like), to keep us "backing Britain."

Sir James Donald, President of the Constitutional Society, writes of the need for a second legislative chamber for New Zealand, roughly analogous to the House of Lords. Thus, he argues for a system which would tend to make our society more similar to Britain—the sort of society in which a Monarchy, with its Royal Appointments and Honours, would prosper. Gavin Scott, winner of the Royal Commonwealth Essay Competition, 1964, tells us of a psycho-sociological need for the Monarchy. Who is putting on whom becomes a little obscure.

The presentation of the material in this issue may reflect an editorial bias. We assured Mr A.F. Manning, Chief Executive Officer of the Constitutional Society, that "any editorial comment will be confined to an editorial column and will not permeate the whole issue."

We have clearly neglected this assurance. As the material took shape, however, we found that the two other approaches which could have been adopted—the Woman'S Weekly/Weekly News "look at Prince Charles chortling with his school chums" style or the dreary "this is the real Prince Charles" pedantry of a Sunday Times coloured supplement—were both inappropriate. We feel that the style that we have chosen is more in keeping with a newspaper which sees its principal function outside providing news as questioning the mores of society.

Cartoon of the queen