Reminder About the Embedded Crown

A timely reminder of the complexities of the change to an Australian Republic is contained in James Boyce’s article in this months edition of The Monthly. An historian and associate of the University of Tasmania, Boyce sets out the history of allegiance to the Crown, how it was envisaged by the drafters of the Australian constitution and how that concept has changed with the narrowing of concepts of Australian nationalism since 1901. He also draws out the difference between “the Crown” and “the monarch” and “subjects” and “citizens”.  He writes: “Until the Constitution is changed, the central place afforded to the Crown should remind the High Court, parliament and the executive that loyalty to Australia cannot be rigidly prescribed…Because of the danger posed by perverted patriotism, all our national institutions could benefit from more fully engaging with what it has meant to be a subject of the Queen.” He goes on to say that “when all references to the Queen are removed [from the Constitution], the republican task will be to sustain an understanding of nationhood that is not narrow-minded or jingoistic” and concludes that the best way to do this is “to overcome the greatest failure of the founding fathers – racism and the neglect of our Indigenous peoples.” [“An Imperial Mess, the High Court vs the Crown” by James Boyce, The Monthly, February 2018]