Royalty !

There is something absurd in the process that determines who will one day sit on the throne of England and assume the title of King or Queen.  That person must be a member of the " Royal " family and be foremost in the pecking order of line of birth.  A baby boy born this week will take his place fifth in line for that honour.

All the citizens of the United Kingdom are expected to bow or curtsy to their monarch and yet a seat on the throne is something denied to them.  The history books depict the tortuous family history of the monarchy as it was beset by civil war, invasion and religious conflict that saw kings beheaded and replaced by popular acclaim from overseas royalty.  That line was broken many times in its journey to the present Monarch.

At the start of the twentieth century, most of the countries of Europe were headed by their own royal line but the numbers have dwindled.  The few remaining have assumed a more collegial relationship with their subjects and abandoned the rigid formality of office.   Even the reigning house of Windsor in Britain has shed some of the formality that was so evident just half a century ago.

Perhaps the biggest change is the dissolution of the old British empire.  When the twentieth century dawned whoever sat on the throne of Britain formally ruled the countries marked in red on the world map.  Today, most have moved to a public vote to select a president and maintain a friendly cohesion by inclusion in a Commonwealth of nations.  Those nations are self governing and many accept the British legal system as the basis of justice in their courts.

It seems an anarchism that this must be a living person.   In legal documents and in the phraseology of the courts the ruling factor is referred to as " the Crown " and it could be equally represented by the jewelled adornment worn by the Monarch at coronation.   Such an object held in a display case in Canberra could serve that purpose equally well in Australia.

It seems inevitable that this country will eventually make the move to replace the British Crown with an Australian head of state.  What form that will take will be controversial and it seems certain that it will be after the reign of the 92 year old Queen Elizabeth ends.  There is a deep respect for the Queen in this country and the matter of a head of state will encounter political turbulence.

Protocol demands that Queen Elizabeth will be followed by Prince Charles and that may stir opposition.  Charles is old and eccentric and many people would favour the more vivacious William and Kate, but that would require an abdication to become reality - and that seems unlikely.

Any far thinking bookmaker would probably give attractive odds that little Prince George will never be king of Australia !