David Penberthy: Prince Andrew makes a compelling argument for a republic
The fact that a man, once friends with a convicted paedophile and commonly referred to as Randy Andy, could be our head of state should have us worried — and talking, writes David Penberthy.
Rendezview
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rendezview. Followed categories will be added to My News.
It is highly fanciful but still technically possible that, through a chain of extraordinary events, the utterly hapless Prince Andrew could become Australia’s head of state.
It would require a world record number of royal deaths and/or abdications in a very short space of time. But the fact remains that if seven more senior royals fell off the perch, the man known as Randy Andy would be our ultimate arbiter of constitutional authority.
We should, of course, drop the Randy Andy moniker in light of his woeful showing on the BBC this week. Morally Bankrupt Andy, Profoundly Stupid Andy … these would be more deserved sobriquets.
For in the course of this excruciating, self-generated exposé, we saw a portrait of a man devoid of any ethical framework to reflect upon the wrongness of his actions, and without the intellectual capacity to provide convincing explanations for them.
RELATED: Prince Andrew quits royal duties amid Jeffrey Epstein scandal
Moreover, Prince Andrew has the tinniest tin ear in history, completely ill-equipped to read the mood not just of the UK but the entire planet over his murky involvement in the squalid criminal tale of Jeffrey Epstein.
Yet our constitution tells us that we are incapable of finding anyone better or more talented in our home country to be our head of state than the likes of Prince Andrew.
We are insulting ourselves.
It is 20 years since Australia had its chance to embrace a republic but instead rejected constitutional change, due largely to infighting within republicans about the nature of the model and also because of the elitist tone of the campaign for a “yes” vote.
It is worth reflecting on those two failings in light of Prince Andrew’s contributions.
It strikes me that almost no republican model could be less palatable than the one that throws this bloke into the mix to be our head of state.
And whatever elitism was displayed by the inner-city stylings of the “yes” campaign are blown out of the water by Prince Andrew himself in his capacity as a publicly underwritten bludger who lives off the public purse for little in return.
RELATED: ‘Nothing short of dangerous’: Prince Andrew’s ‘trainwreck’ interview sparks royal rift
The old saying “what do you get a man who has everything” was brought to mind this week when news broke on Wednesday night that Prince Andrew was pulling back from his public role.
It begged the question: how does the man who appears to do nothing anyway pull back from his schedule of taxpayer-funded idleness?
Prince Andrew receives an annual public stipend of £249,000 (about $470,000) and a naval pension of £20,000 ($38,000) from his military service, including his stint in the Falklands, where he acquired the hitherto unknown non-sweating syndrome.
All this amounts to handy coin, but it is not the stuff from which millionaires are made – which is a bit weird because he lives like one, owning two large properties including a £13 million ($24 million) chalet at the Swiss ski resort Verbier and the 30-room Royal Lodge in Windsor Park.
When not doing (or getting others to do) work providing seed-funding to business start-ups, Prince Andrew basically flies around the world playing golf and skiing and, previously, going to parties at Jeffrey Epstein’s.
Earlier this week, the head of the Australian Republican Movement, Peter FitzSimons, took to Twitter to goad Australian monarchists about their thoughts on our constitutional arrangements in light of the Prince Andrew interview.
RELATED: Duke of York will help FBI with its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein
My instinctive reaction to the tweet was to regard it as counter-productive, in that the logic of its suggests that you should back a constitutional model on the basis of whether you like its members or not, rather than the system itself.
If it were a popularity contest, the Queen and, to a lesser extent, William and Harry, would provide a tactical edge to the maintenance of the status quo.
The more I have read this week about Prince Andrew, though, I think it is a totally valid question to hone in on his character and lifestyle as being completely intertwined with the concept of a constitutional monarchy.
For monarchies have historically been built on theft and the retention of power and influence at the expense of the poor and unconnected. The very concept of lineage is an offence to the principle of reward for effort.
That’s why the woeful contribution (or non-contribution) of lesser royals such as Andrew — and those even lesser royals who clog up the front pages of Hello! magazine swanning about at polo parties and hunting pheasant — is inextricably part of the deal.
It is a deal we don’t have to buy into.
While acknowledging the hardships of our indigenous friends, I would argue that overall Australia was fortunate to have been colonised by the Brits, as we inherited a system of parliamentary democracy and a legal system that is the gold standard in governance compared with everything else that’s on offer.
But the royals themselves have added nothing to Australia. We can cut our own ribbons, thanks.
The really interesting thing is that the republican debate might not be roaring back into the headlines in Australia but it is revving up in the UK, with public discussion about whether Andrew deserves to keep his royal retainer and a broader questioning of the extent to which his type can coast through life on the public kick.
It would be a pretty hilarious state of affairs – in the unlikely event Britain went down the republican path and we didn’t – that our head of state would be the first British president.
I am not sure what the mechanism is to effect this change.
I suspect many politicians would be fearful of being painted as advocates of a campaign that’s already been put to a vote and which has no bearing on people’s day-to-day lives.
I am inclined to agree on both points. But it is worth stating this week that Andrew has done one good thing, namely to remind us of the ridiculousness of it all.