Harry and Meghan have made republicans’ mission much harder

In my teens, I would often refuse to stand for the national anthem or sing it. God Save the Queen had no real meaning for me then and having an English monarch has no meaning for me now either.

When Malcolm Turnbull put his hand up to lead the republican movement, I was an enthusiastic supporter, and still am. No one more than me would like to see an Australian head of state or a flag that reflected only my country and no other.

The conventional wisdom has been that we could have another crack at a referendum once the Queen passes away. Her Majesty is in her 90s, looks as healthy as can be, and shows few signs of slowing down. She is well aware of the failure of her eldest son, Charles, to find any space or place in the hearts of her subjects.

While Diana was killed in that dreadful car accident in Paris 20 years ago, she had done Charles enormous damage in her famous Panorama interview where she talked about how her marriage was “crowded” because Camilla was always the one Charles fancied. Charles has never recovered from his divorce from Diana, and the Queen herself so misread the outpouring of grief upon Diana’s death that she, temporarily at least, looked hopelessly out of touch.

Earl Spencer’s speech at Diana’s funeral was a brilliant oratory and he did not miss the Queen. While they were bad times for the royal family, that funeral began the phenomenon that has rescued the House of Windsor.

Those two heartbroken little boys trailing behind their mother’s coffin earned the sympathy of the billions who saw it all on live television. William and Harry are no longer little boys. They are all grown up and present now an enormous threat to Australia’s republican movement. It is hard to imagine that they could be any more popular here. Each stage of William’s relationship with Kate Middleton received extraordinary publicity. When it was known that she was dating the prince, the ­paparazzi followed her every time she left her front door.

The engagement was a big enough deal but the wedding was a massive media event that breathed so much positive thought into the monarchy. With each pregnancy, Britain held its breath until the healthy baby could be photographed with the proud parents.

Then there is Harry. He doesn’t take the easy road of the rich and famous. He joined the army and fought in Afghanistan. In the US and Canada, let alone Britain and Australia, he is mob­bed by the girls and admired by the boys. His regular visits to Africa evoke images of his mother’s long campaign against landmines in that war-torn continent.

If you look at the media this week, two people dominated the space. One was Don Burke and the publicity he received was an unpleasant reminder of a culture we all hope has passed. The other was Harry getting engaged to a mixed-race Meghan Markle, a successful American TV actress.

Even committed republicans engage in conversations about how long the marriage might last.

When the republican referendum was lost in Australia, it fell short because there was no agreement on the model. Under Peter FitzSimons’s leadership, that obstacle to success has been removed by adopting the stance that nothing changes. The governor- general, president or head of state would keep the same powers and be appointed by the government.

This is an important change but these young royals may render it irrelevant. I do not get any sense that younger Australians place a republic anywhere on their radar. Popular princes are hard to knock and make bagging the monarchy a hazardous pursuit.