The British Royals in Australia

Royalty and Its Representation in Popular Culture

Consuming Royalty

ABSTRACTThis article considers how the treatment of the British Royal Family as celebrities simultaneously maintains and displaces the white diasporic ties between Commonwealth settler nations. The media production and consumption of the House of Windsor in terms of celebrity culture is a crucial way in which the British monarchy is legitimised as an important part of civil and public life in settler countries such as Australia and New Zealand. This article focuses on print news reporting of two state visits by Prince William to Australia and New Zealand in 2010 and 2011. As part of this reporting, I examine the mediation of protocols of sovereign welcome and recognition by and for the Royal Family and Gadigal and Māori peoples in terms of their contribution to a civic polity that normalises settler durability. Although Royal visits are enabled by white diasporic links between settler countries and the United Kingdom, I argue that media tropes of celebrity aura and divine charisma function to ex-nominate whiteness and race from media reporting on the British Royal Family. The celebritisation of constitutional monarchy has the effect of obscuring the racial and religious power that authorises constitutional monarchy as well as these states’ settler colonial histories.

This article explores the 1953-54 Royal Tour and in particular the planning and eventual reception of the Queen and her party when they arrived in Gibraltar. These events are considered in terms of three overlapping contexts: the imperial, the colonial and the geopolitical. First, the Royal Tour marked not only the debut of a new Queen but also the realization that the British Empire was beginning to fragment with the eruption of independence movements in South Asia and the Middle East. Hence, its international itinerary bound the remaining empire symbolically together, but also served as a reminder of the ‘gaps’ that were beginning to appear. Second, the analysis considers how the Royal Tour presented an opportunity for the local residents of Gibraltar to ‘perform their loyalty’ to the new Queen and the British Empire. The focus on performance is significant because the article does not presume that ‘loyalty’ is simply pre-given. A great deal of work was involved in realizing the reception of the Queen's party in May 1954 against a backdrop of a territorial dispute with Spain over the future legal status of Gibraltar. The Royal Tour offered the possibility, therefore, of persuading the British and Spanish governments of the local residents’ qualities including a continued loyalty to the British/imperial Royal Family and indirectly to Britain. Third, the article underscores the significance of such loyal performances by considering Spanish opposition to the Queen's visit in the light of Franco's efforts to establish his country's anti-Communist credentials. The Royal Tour, and the Gibraltar leg in particular, are thus show to be an intense locus of performances linked to the politics of empire, colonial rights and anti-imperialism.Animated, happy faces gazing at the sights and decorations show better than words the true feelings of the people of the fortress-colony towards their young, beloved Queen. One correspondent of a British newspaper said that he thought the 27,000 servicemen and civilians on the Rock were so fervidly loyal that they would tear to pieces anyone discovered in their midst with evil designs, and that was sufficient guarantee of their Majesty's safety. 1

Introduction On Saturday 6 February 1954, on the third day of the Australian leg of their tour of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, visited Sydney’s Bondi Beach. The specially-staged Royal Surf Carnival they witnessed—comprising a spectacular parade, surf boat races, mock resuscitations and even unscheduled surf rescues—generated extensive media coverage. Attracting attention from historians (Warshaw 134; Ford 194–196), the carnival lingers in popular memory as not only a highlight of the Australian tour (Conway n.p.; Clark 8) and among the “most celebrated events in Australian surf lifesaving history” (Ford et al. 5) but also as “the most spectacular occasion [ever held] at Bondi Beach” (Lawrence and Sharpe 86). It is even, for some, a “highlight of the [Australian] post-war period” (Ford et al. 5). Despite this, the fuller history of the Queen’s visit to Bondi, including the detailed planning involved, remains unexplored. A small round tin medal, discovered online, offered a fresh way to approach this event. 31mm in diameter, 2mm in depth, this dual-sided, smooth-edged medal hangs from a hoop on approximately 80mm of discoloured, doubled red, white, and blue striped ribbon, fastened near its end with a tarnished brass safety pin. The obverse features a relief portrait of the youthful Queen’s face and neck in profile, her hair loosely pulled back into a low chignon, enclosed within a striped symmetrical scrolled border of curves and peaks. This is encircled with another border inscribed in raised capitals: “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Royal Visit to Waverley N.S.W.” The reverse features a smooth central section encircled with the inscription (again in raised capitals), “Presented to the Children of Waverley N.S.W. 1954”, the centre inscribed, “By Waverley Municipal Council C.A. Jeppesen Mayor”. Figs. 1 & 2: Medal, c.1954. Collection of the Author. Medals are often awarded in recognition of achievement and, in many cases, are worn as prominent components of military and other uniforms. They can also be made and gifted in commemoration, which was the case with this medal, one of many thousands presented in association with the tour. Made for Waverley Council, it was presented to all schoolchildren under 15 in the municipality, which included Bondi Beach. Similar medals were presented to schoolchildren by other Australian councils and States in Australia (NAA A462). This gifting was not unprecedented, with medals presented to (at least some) Australian schoolchildren to commemorate Queen Victoria’s 1897 Diamond Jubilee (The Age 5; Sleight 187) and the 1937 coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (“Coronation Medals” 6). Unable to discover any provenance for this medal aside from its (probable) presentation in 1954 and listing for sale in 2021, I pondered instead Waverley Council’s motivation in sourcing and giving these medals. As a researcher, this assisted me in surmounting the dominance of the surf carnival in the history of this event and led to an investigation of the planning around the Bondi visit. Planning Every level of government was involved in planning the event. Created within the Prime Minister’s Department, the Royal Visit Organisation 1954—staffed from early 1953, filling positions from within the Commonwealth Public Service, armed services and statutory authorities—had overall authority over arrangements (NAA 127, 134). National planning encompassed itineraries, travel arrangements, security, public relations, and protocol as well as fly and mosquito control, the royals’ laundry arrangements, and advice on correct dress (NAA: A1533; NAA: A6122; NAA: A9708, RV/DD Annex.15; NAA: A1838, 1516/11 Parts 1&2; NAA: A9708, RV/CD; NAA: A9708, RV/CQ; NAA: A9708, RV/T). Planning conferences were held with State officials who developed State visit programs and then devolved organisational responsibilities to Councils and other local organisations (NAA: A9708, RV/DD Annex.2; NAA: A9708, RV/DD Annex.3). Once the Bondi Beach location was decided, the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia received a Royal Command to stage a surf carnival for the royals. This command was passed to the president of the Bondi club, who organised a small delegation to meet with government representatives. A thirteen-member Planning Committee, all men (“The Queen to See” 12), was appointed “with full power to act without reference to any other body” (Meagher 6). They began meeting in June 1953 and, soon after this, the carnival was announced in the Australian press. In recognition, the “memorable finale” of a Royal Command Performance before the Queen in London in November 1953 marked the royal couple’s impending tour by filling the stage with people from Commonwealth countries. This concluded with “an Australian tableau”. Alongside people dressed as cricketers, tennis players, servicemen, and Indigenous people, a girl carrying a huge bunch of bananas, and a couple in kangaroo suits were six lifesavers dressed in Bondi march-past costumes and caps, carrying the club flag (Royal Variety Charity n.p.). In deciding on a club for the finale, Bondi was “seen the epitome of the surf lifesaving movement—and Australia” (Brawley 82). The Planning Committee worked with representatives from the police, army, government, local council, and ambulance services as well as the media and other bodies (Meagher 6). Realising the “herculean task” (Meagher 9) ahead, the committee recruited some 170 members (again all men) and 20 women volunteers from the Bondi and North Bondi Surf Clubs to assist. This included sourcing and erecting the carnival enclosure which, at over 200 meters wide, was the largest ever at the beach. The Royal dais that would be built over the promenade needed a canvas cover to shield the royal couple from the heat or rain. Seating needed to be provided for some 10,500 paying spectators, and eventually involved 17 rows of tiered seating set across the promenade, 2,200 deckchairs on the sand in front, and, on each flank, the Bondi Surf Club’s tiered stands. Accommodations also had to be provided at selected vantage points for some 100 media representatives, with a much greater crowd of 50–60,000 expected to gather outside the enclosure. Four large tents, two at each end of the competition area, would serve as both change rooms and shady rest areas for some 2,000 competitors. Two additional large tents were needed, one at each end of the lawns behind the beach, fitted out with camp stretchers that had to be sourced for the St John Ambulance Brigade to deal with first-aid cases, most of whom were envisaged to come from the crowds due to heat stroke (Meagher 6–7). The committee also had to solve numerous operational issues not usually associated with running a surf carnival, such as ensuring sufficient drinking water for so many people on what might be a very hot day (“The Queen to See” 12). With only one tap in the carnival area, the organisers had to lay a water line along the entire one-kilometre length of the promenade with double taps every two to three metres. Temporary toilets also had to be sourced, erected, and serviced. Self-financing and with costs adding up, sponsors needed to be secured to provide goods and services in return for advertising. An iced water unit was, for instance, provided on the dais, without cost, by the ElectrICE Commercial Refrigeration company. The long strip of red carpet laid from where the royals would alight from their car right through the dais was donated by the manufacturer of Feltex, a very popular Australian-made wool carpet. Prominent department store, Anthony Horden’s, loaned the intricately carved chairs to be used by the Royal couple and other officials, while The Bondi Diggers Club provided chrome plated chairs for other official guests, many of whom were the crew of royal yacht, the S.S. Gothic (Meagher 6). Fig. 3: “Feltex [Advertisement].” The Australian Home Beautiful Nov. 1954: 40. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2985285882. The Ladies Committees of the Bondi and North Bondi surf clubs were tasked with organising and delivering lunch and drinks to over 400 officials, all of whom were to stay in position from early morning until the carnival concluded at 5 pm (Meagher 6). Girl members of the Bondi social clubs were to act as usherettes. Officials describe deciding who would meet, or even come in any close proximity to, the Queen as “most ticklish” and working with mayors and other officials a “headache” (“Socialites” 3). In Bondi, there were to be notably few officials sitting with the royal couple, but thousands of “ordinary” spectators seated around the carnival area. On her arrival, it was planned that the Queen would walk through a guard of honour of lifesavers from each Australian and New Zealand club competing in the carnival. After viewing the finals of the surf boat races, the Queen would meet the team captains and then, in a Land Rover, inspect the massed lifesavers and greet the spectators. Although these activities were not contentious, debate raged about the competitors’ uniforms. At this time, full-length chest-covering costumes were normally worn in march-past and other formal events, with competitors stripping down to trunks for surf races and beach events. It was, however, decided that full-length costumes would be worn for the entirety of the Queen’s visit. This generated considerable press commentary that this was ridiculous, and charges that Australians were ashamed of their lifesavers’ manly chests (“Costume Rule” 3). The president of the Bondi Life Saving Club, however, argued that they did not want the carnival spoiled by lifesavers wearing “dirty … track suits, football guernseys … old football shorts … and just about everything except proper attire” (ctd. in Jenkings 1). Waverley Council similarly attempted to control the appearance of the route through which the royals would travel to th

Introduction The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest country in the Middle East. Lying within the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, it borders the Red Sea to the west; Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait to the north; the Persian Gulf, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to the east; and Oman and Yemen to the south. The foundation of Saudi Arabia may be largely credited to two main historical figures who lived in the first half of the eighteenth century. The first figure, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was a devout Islamic scholar and religious activist who fervently condemned the increasing tendencies of local peoples toward idolatrous practices. He preached the need for a return to stricter adherence to the original principles of Islam, based on devotion to the doctrine of the ‘absolute unity of God’ as passed through, and enunciated by, the witness of God’s word, Prophet Muhammad (Rentz). In present-day Saudi Arabia, reverence to Prophet Muhammad’s divine revelations and divinely appointed role, as accentuated by al-Wahhab, remains inscribed on the national flag (fig. 1), which states: “there is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of God”. Figure 1: The flag of Saudi Arabia Although initially met with opposition, al-Wahhab’s eventual encounter in 1744 with the ruler of the Najd town of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud, led to “the drastic change in the course of Arabian history” (Rentz 16), after both men pledged an oath and alliance in pursuit of a successful religious, political, and military expansion campaign that saw Diriyah become the first Saudi state and original home to the Al-Saud dynasty (MoFA). It was not until 1932, however, that the nation-state of Saudi Arabia was officially formed, establishing Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud (often known as Ibn Saud) as the first officially recognised ruling monarch and patriarch of the modern House of Saud. In only a few short decades since the date of unification, the once poor desert landscape comprised of rivalling nomadic tribes has undergone astonishing transformations, making the present-day unified Kingdom a key strategic regional and international actor within world politics, and a major economical, technological, and military power and rival. In addition to being a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), for example, Saudi Arabia is also an active and founding member of international organisations such as the United Nations, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) (OAS). Notably, Saudi Arabia’s influence and eminence in the international arena specifically pertains to its leading role within OPEC, given that Saudi Arabia’s command economy is largely petroleum-based. Here, Saudi Arabia is the “largest generator of net oil export revenue” for OPEC, and the “largest OPEC crude oil exporter” (Statista); in 2022, Saudi Arabia’s oil export revenues totalled US$311 billion (Statista). Unsurprisingly, the House of Saud is the wealthiest royal family in the world, worth an estimated US$1.4 trillion (Hieu), a figure four times the combined wealth of billionaires Elon Musk (worth an estimated US$236.1 billion) and Bill Gates (worth an estimated US$119.7 billion). The combined wealth of the House of Saud also significantly surpasses the worth of the renowned British royal family, whose combined wealth pales in comparison at an estimated US$28 billion (Hieu; Srinivasan). Arguably, the net worth of the House of Saud not only financially ranks them among the top tier of elites, but also makes them one of the most powerful royal families in the world (Hieu). Presently, the nation remains an absolute monarchy under a Sharia legal system, in accordance with Islamic law as principally derived from the Quran (holy book) and Sunnah (the saying, traditions, and practices of Prophet Muhammad). Absolute monarchism denotes that no political parties or national elections are permitted, and that the reigning monarch executes predominant control over legislative and internal civil affairs. Comparatively, a constitutional monarchy such as that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland denotes that the powers held by the reigning monarch in their position as head of state are more symbolic and ceremonial. As such, the House of Windsor often rely significantly on consumerist culture as a means for maintaining their monarchical legitimacy, and relevance and ‘celebrity’, particularly within its Commonwealth settler nations (Randell-Moon). The rule of the House of Saud has often been controversially labelled by critics as totalitarian (Bandow), particularly for the limited freedoms of expression and association afforded to its citizens, where “controversy is discouraged, and conformity is encouraged” (Faksh & Hendrickson 1171); as Faksh and Hendrickson (1171) surmise, “the system offers little scope for the expression of competing views, much less for acting on them”. Nonetheless, the prevailing system of government in Saudi Arabia, currently under the patronage of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, led to the creation of one of the most uniquely curated sovereign powers, whose rise and affluence is, in part, largely testament to the loyalty of its citizenry to its monarchy. The Saudi government provides its citizens with a range of benefits, including exemption from personal income tax, free education (including tertiary) and healthcare, as well as government-subsidised handouts. In 2018, for example, King Salman ordered the government to pay around 1.18 million Saudis working in the public sector 1,000 Saudi Riyals (SAR) (approximately US$266) per month to “offset increasing costs of living” (Perper); for Alawwad (cited in Perper), “the allocation of 50 billion Riyals (approximately US$13 billion) for this decree indicates the leadership’s concern for the people’s comfort and quality of living. The modern-day rule of Saudi royalty may be seen as reminiscent of the foundational traditions and customs on which the nation was formed, “much like a sheikh of a tribe who is in close touch with the concerns of his tribesmen and keeps those concerns in balance” (Faksh & Hendrickson 1171). The Saudi monarchy that has thus emerged may be seen to radically differ from Western concepts of the institution: “no Sun King, no pomp elevating the monarch far above the common breed, not even a crown or a throne” (Rentz 15). This article discusses the growth of the House of Saud – from nomadic warriors principally guided by the foundations of Islam to entrepreneurs determined to bridge the gap in the Kingdom between tradition and modernity, conservatism and social liberalism, nationalism and internationalism. The Founding Monarchs, Black Gold, and Foreign Relations Prior to the official unification of Saudi Arabia in 1932, the House of Saud considered the UK a close ally, particularly with regard to British support received in relation to the defeat of the Ottoman conquest in the Arabia Peninsula (Nonneman). During World War I, for example, Ibn Saud (then ruler of Najd and al-Ahsa, and later founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) signed the 1915 Treaty of Darin (or ‘Anglo-Saudi’ Treaty) with the British government, granting the regions under Ibn Saud’s rule the status of a British protectorate (Wilkinson; Dahlan). In the years that followed the signing of the treaty, Britain also granted Ibn Saud “a loan of [₤]20,000 and a shipment of arms”, as well as a monthly stipend of ₤5,000 from 1917 to 1924 (Nonneman 640). This stipend was granted as a token for the “consolidation of the new Saudi polity, through military means and acts of patronage and generosity towards both [Ibn Saud’s] supporters and many of his vanquished foes” (Nonneman 640). In 1927, the Treaty of Darin was supplanted by the Treaty of Jeddah, which affirmed the British government’s recognition of absolute independence of Ibn Saud’s rulership as King of Najd and Hejaz and its dependencies – the ‘dual Kingdom’ later unified and renamed to Saudi Arabia (Nonneman). Undoubtedly, the discovery of ‘black gold’ in Saudi Arabia had, and continues to have, significant influence on the nation’s identify formation, the extent of its socioeconomic growth, and the Saudi monarchy’s political prowess. Given the strength of the alliance between the state under Ibn Saud and the UK in the early twentieth century, Ibn Saud awarded a UK-based company its first petroleum concession in 1923; after four years, however, the company was unable to strike any oil and the contract was not renewed. A second sixty-year concession that was awarded to the US-based Standard Oil Company of California (now known as the Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO) in 1933 would, however, not only mark a significant turning-point for the Saudi economy, but also for Saudi foreign relations thereafter (Al-Farsy). According to Al-Farsy (45), Ibn Saud’s “concession to the American firm at that time represented a major break with what was virtually a British monopoly of petroleum concession in that part of the world”. Notably, the House of Saud also received ‘advantageous’ offers from both Japan and Germany for oil ‘diplomacy’ in the late 1930s (Al-Farsy). Ibn Saud believed, however, that the Axis Powers were instead “motivated by political considerations” (Al-Farsy 47) and were “aware of the strategic value of the Middle East, situated as it was on the lines of communication with her new European partners” (Katakura 263). As such, Ibn Saud “preferred to continue his association with the Americans” as it had “the advantage of assuring the economic development of the country without incurring political liabilities” (Al-Farsy 47). World War II, thus, markedly represented a unique epoch for the House of Saud, characterised by an expansion of diplomatic missions beyond Europe to America (Beling). From Warrior to Diplomat Ibn Saud was considered a warrior of “towering a

The secular composition of nation-states such as Australia presents them as liberal and autonomously governed. At the same time, their formation through the imprimatur of the British Crown continues to involve symbolic rituals of exchange and deference to the British monarchy. Despite the presence of a monarchy within democratic state arrangements being premised on principles that are, ostensibly, antithetical to secular democracy, the British monarchy and Royal Family are often framed in media and political discourse as ensuring the stability of secular democracy through tropes around celebrity, family, and divinity. This is exemplified in the epigraph to this chapter, from an official welcome by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to Prince Harry during a Royal visit to Australia (cited in Wilson 2013). It follows one of the more common rationales for the continuation of the monarchy: the idea that a democratic state benefits from an enduring and transcendent symbol of British parliamentary and Commonwealth traditions. The British monarchy also embodies specifically Anglo-British religious and cultural values, which are coextensive with the colonial precepts of Crown law used to invalidate the status of Indigenous peoples as sovereign custodians of the land. Terms such as grace, transcendence, and continuity are used to displace the imperial and racial origins of the monarchy as well as the colonial foundations of the Australian political system.1KeywordsIndigenous PeopleSettler StateCivil LifeRoyal FamilyIndigenous LandThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Inculcative Power of Australian Cadet Corps Uniforms in the 1900s and 1910s

Royal tours are years in the making and the co-ordination between the Royal Household and the British representatives on the ground is vital. The work undertaken by mid-level administrators within the Royal Tour party itself or as a British Representative on the ground is critical to achieving the objectives of the tour. After the cataclysm of the First World War and the growth of nationalist movements across the British Empire, it was even more important that the Royal Tour serve as a political assertion of Britain’s presence and its dominance over colonial subjects. The financial constraints that resulted from the four years of warfare also made Britain’s projection of power though military methods alone more difficult. The Royal Tour was seen as a means by which Britain could assert its soft power and reaffirm imperial links with messages of thanks for the colonial efforts during the First World War. Within the ritual space of the Royal Tour, it also permitted nationalist actors the platform to challenge the political and cultural aims of imperial rule. The Duke of Connaught’s and the Prince of Wales’s tour to the subcontinent between 1921 and 1922 are examples of how nationalist agitators could disrupt these displays of British dominance. Royal tours are long in the making but their objectives can be undermined in a matter of hours. Their successful execution required agile responses from the political and military secretaries accompanying the tour party alongside a thorough and deep understanding of circumstances on the ground by the man-on-the-spot.

Conjuring Up a King

The Royal Treatment

Genes and queens

The fascination with the British monarchy, which spans the globe, is particularly visible in the United States. Despite fighting a bloody war to separate themselves from Great Britain, Americans are still heavily obsessed with the British royal family. The interest endures in great part due to the air of mystery and celebrity depicted in media productions as well as real-life events that keep providing media fodder on both sides of the pond. Among the latest and most controversial royal family moments are those regarding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This study analyzes the treatment of the Sussexes in the mass media and on social networks by examining the Netflix productions The Crown and the Harry & Meghan docuseries, Meghan Markle’s Spotify podcast, Archetypes, as well as the correlation between articles and interviews in both American and British media and the social media posts. Employing the uses and gratifications theory and the theory of the negativity bias, it aims to demonstrate that the combination of the two approaches can be useful in explaining shifts in media coverage that catered to the needs of media users whose changing gratifications shaped media representations of the ex-royal pair. The analysis reveals how varying reactions pertaining to cultural differences reinforce preexisting attitudes regarding the British royal family in order to expose the gratifications and experiential factors accompanying the participation of individuals in news production and diffusion in large global virtual communities.

The tours of the British royal family have always been important both for the British Empire and for the countries visited. Prince Alfred’s Mediterranean voyage in 1859 is among the royal tours that increased in the second half of the nineteenth century, but it is not well known in literature. Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Victoria’s second son, was sent on a mission to see and learn about the Mediterranean region in 1859 when he was only fifteen years old. The route of this tour, which mostly took place in Ottoman lands and along the coast, was shaped by the Prince’s interests in archaeology, history and photography. It followed a varied itinerary, taking in Alexandria, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Beirut, Tripoli, Rhodes, Crete, Halicarnassus, Knidos, Smyrna, the Dardanelles, Kavala, Mount Athos, Salonica, Catherine, Athens, Corfu and Malta. When his visits to these regions are evaluated together with the hegemonic policies of the British Empire, it is understood that this tour should also be seen as an activity serving the strategic goals of the empire. When newspaper reports from the period, Ottoman archival records, many photographs and archaeological findings in the Royal Collection, are evaluated together, it becomes possible to date many firsts in the history of royal tours back to 1859. In this context, research on Alfred’s voyage, which should be considered the first royal tour, has made significant contributions to the definition and scope of royal tours, the historiography of these tours, the Prince’s biography, and the history of the Mediterranean world.

Violence and Power of the Modern British Monarch