From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli – 21 March

Unsurprisingly, the Oprah Winfrey television interview with Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, has raised the question of an Australian republic.

THOSE of my generation are, for the most part, royal supporters. We grew-up with God Save The Queen as our national anthem. England was considered the Mother Country. To be British was ‘all’. Sea-faring travellers talked of going home to England, even though they were born in Australia. Most of us cannot remember a time without Elizabeth as Queen. She has served us well, for the greater part.

Much has changed over the years. Without a moment of hesitation, England cut Australia adrift when it joined the European common market. Australians arriving at English immigration entry points were classified as ‘others’, even though our men and women fought and died in the defence of the United Kingdom in both the World Wars. Without the Commonwealth soldiers, and America’s entry into the European theatre of war, Britain would have suffered certain defeat, Churchill’s rhetoric notwithstanding.

It was assumed serious lessons had been learned from the Diana, Princess of Wales, Panorama interview of 25 years past. Apparently, judging from the comments made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, nothing has changed in the Royal Household. Clearly, there is still a serious disconnect; a disturbing dysfunction.

The most damning of a litany of revelations being that a senior member of the family raised a concern about the colour of any children born from a proposed marriage between Harry and Meghan. The Queen said in her official statement, “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.”

Given 70 per cent of the peoples in the Commonwealth of Nations are of colour, it is difficult to imagine the monarchy recovering from this ugly racist notion, however innocently it may have been couched. For The Queen, whose raison d’être has been the championing of the collective of nations which was established by her late father, King George VI, and of which she is the head, it will, surely, prove deeply distressing. In this instance, perhaps not even Her Majesty’s endless charm and good sense will save the day. While obviously her statement is sincere, it would seem to be a case of too little, too late. The damage has been done.

In 1867, the British journalist, businessman, and essayist, Walter Bagehot, wrote The English Constitution, a book which explores the nature of the constitution of the United Kingdom, specifically its parliament and monarchy. Of the latter Mr Bagehot wrote, “We must not let the daylight in upon the magic”. As it happens, he was correct. In this age of social media, some members of the Royal Family have gone in pursuit of celebrity. They have elected to become civilians, with all that entails. Inevitably, the harsh glare of daylight has revealed the cracks in the structure.

While it is deemed bad form to presuppose the death of the monarch, now is the time for Australians to begin a bipartisan dialogue about the future of the nation following the demise of Queen Elizabeth. Family longevity notwithstanding, The Queen has only limited time. Australians should, in these final years of Her Majesty’s life, begin thinking seriously about the course of the future. Does it lie with King Charles III as Australia’s next head of state?

Unquestionably, the life of the Royal Family is an impossible one. They are damned if they do, and they are damned if they don’t; however, their readiness to be part of hoi-polloi, and still remain apart, is a thorny path fraught with danger.

A life of unparalleled luxury and privilege comes with a caveat. If the Royal Family is to survive and thrive into the 21st century there needs be a serious, and meaningful, overhaul of the House of Windsor.

You can contact Roland via [email protected] and he welcomes your feedback!