“If William and Harry could accept Camilla,” the headline in the Herald ran, “who are we to disagree?”

I don’t, particularly. Camilla Parker-Bowles becoming Queen of England will just be another fascinating chapter in the royal soap opera that has been running for centuries. But make no mistake, it is a chapter that will help bring an end, at last, to the absurdity of the English monarchy reigning over us in Australia in the third decade of the 21st century.

The Queen and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, at the G7 summit in Cornwall in June. Credit:AP

Let’s go to the part where Camilla will be crowned. There she is in Westminster Abbey chokka-blok with England’s ruling class, right beside King Charles III, and after all kinds of evocations to God, the Archbishop of Canterbury will put a crown upon her head, as the commentators and a small chunk of the Australian population swoons.

But most of the rest of us? Please.

Look, her coronation will not see her have remotely the status in these parts as her mother-in-law Her Majesty Elizabeth II. I am advised by constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey that, “while Charles will automatically become ‘King of Australia’ and Queen Camilla will be referred to as ‘Her Majesty’, she will not be ‘Queen of Australia’ in any legal sense.”

That notwithstanding, the absurdity of the whole thing will come into sharp relief. Allow me to dust off my favourite Jerry Seinfeld quote about English royalty.

“Well, it’s a circus act, it’s an absurd act …” Seinfeld once told a British breakfast TV audience. “You know, it’s dress-up. It’s a classic English thing of ‘let’s play dress-up. Let’s pretend that these are special people’. OK, we’ll all pretend that – that’s what theatre is. That’s why the British have the greatest theatre in the world. They love to dress up and they love to play pretend. And that’s what the royal family is – it’s a huge game of pretend. These aren’t special people – it’s fake outfits, fake phoney hats and gowns.”

Boom! The English do indeed do this stuff very, very well. And when Elizabeth II was crowned back in 1953, there was no issue, as royalty was rarely questioned. But now, let’s lean in closer as the baton changes hands and look at it with the cooler eyes of a more cosmopolitan and independent people. Because a nice Englishwoman gets a sparkly hat put on her head in a big church in England, the Commonwealth now has a new “Queen Consort”?

No input by anyone in Australia? It is simply imposed by superior bloodlines? Prince Andrew anyone?

None of this is to have a go at Camilla, particularly, or any of the rest of them – and certainly not at Queen Elizabeth II. By and large, the former Mrs Parker-Bowles seems far and away the most relatable of the Windsors and I still cherish the impish look she gave the press when she was about to meet Donald Trump for the first time, a couple of years ago at Buckingham Palace.

She didn’t say, ’Gor Blimey, can you BELIEVE I have to shake hands with this oaf?” but her amused eyes certainly did! Sigh. I did but see her passing by . . .

But the Duchess of Cornwall’s likeability aside, while it is one thing for royals born and raised to play the star roles in this classic bit of English theatre, watch what must inevitably happen when a “commoner,” – sniff – gets the shiny hat.

How can it not focus attention on the absurdity of it all?

At the Australian Republican Movement we monitor the figures closely. A little over half the mob in Australia are with us. A little under a quarter are agin us. And a big chunk of the quarter who don’t care particularly, say “I am not with you while the Queen is still here, but once she dies or abdicates, I am all yours.“

Peter Fitzsimons is the chairman of the Australian Republic Movement.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in World

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article