By Dr George Venturini  

The Crown has other offshore money-spinners closer to home. The Crown Estate owns vast swathes of land around the United Kingdom. And that helps pay for the running of the Royal Household and the royals’ travel bills. But one of the most surprising things that it owns, dating back centuries, is the entire British seabed, stretching out 12 nautical miles from the coast. The Crown Estate has capitalised by allowing the building of wind farms around the coast. They made 37 million pounds last year. While 75 per cent of that goes to the taxpayer, one quarter of the wind farm profit goes to ‘The Palace’ through the Sovereign Grant.

It is all legal. Whether it is right is a different matter.

The Queen has her ways: “Good evening objects.”

Dani Beckett was firm: “I would love to see that money being generated by publicly-owned renewable energy. I think it would be a great situation for us to be where that is owned by us, as a country. But it’s not, it’s held by the monarchy. And that speaks to the power that they hold that is absolutely untouchable by the regular citizens of this country.”

The reporter could not help saying: “Another controversial aspect of the monarchy taking profits from Crown land is the fact that the Sovereign Grant pays for Royal Travel. ‘The Palace’ spent about three million pounds on official travel [in 2017].”

To which David McClure added: “Travel could be said to be the Royal Family’s Achilles heel. They spend an awful lot of money on aeroplane travel and also, the Royal Train. Last year the Queen only used the Royal Train three times and it costs hundreds of thousands to run.”

The reporter: “Most criticised for his travel spending is the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales, who has now taken over much of his mother’s travel commitments.”

David McClure: “Charles has a large retinue, and when he goes to the Far East, he takes ten people with him – a press officer, a hairdresser, a butler or two, and these all cost a lot of money. So Charles has been criticised for having too large a retinue and spending too much money.”

Emily Andrews took the opportunity to say: “Year after year, you will see that Prince Charles is the highest spending royal, he will often charter planes, and then, on his tours, he does two or three big tours a year, he’ll charter a plane in the UK and take it all the way around wherever he is going and then back. And this costs hundreds of thousands of pounds.”

Lord Tony Berkeley cold not contain himself: “If Charles and Camilla go on a long trip, can’t they sit in first class rather than having their own aeroplane? The cost of these planes is enormous.”

The reporter added: “Prince Harry and his wife Meghan received a rock star reception during their tour to Australia this month. The Queen has recently appointed Harry her Commonwealth Youth Ambassador. But experts on the Commonwealth are sceptical about what this really means.”

Professor Philip Murphy explained: “Attaching the royal family to this buzzword of youth is a rather desperate way of trying to keep the Commonwealth going and keep it appearing relevant. The idea of the emperor’s new clothes, as something that everyone pretends is solid and wonderful and the greatest thing on earth, but actually is so insubstantial it barely exists. And I think the Commonwealth is a bit like that. The links between its member states are so tenuous. It barely registers on the world scene. There is no publicly available figure on the total cost of the Royal Family to the taxpayer.”

The reporter noted: “While the British public is having romance with Harry and Meghan, William and Kate, it’s less in love with the minor royals. The wedding of Princess Eugenie this month sent the tabloids into a tailspin. Eugenie wanted a carriage ride through Windsor like her cousin, Prince Harry, and that’s estimated to have cost at least two million pounds in security bills alone.”

Professor Philip Murphy: “There’s certain things the public are prepared to pay for. They’re prepared to pay for the royals they like. Let’s face it, Harry and Meghan at the moment are very popular. It depends on what sort of princess it is. Meghan is a wonderful princess, she’s come from Hollywood which knows how to do princesses. And, I think in showbiz, if you’ve got a popular star, the public will stump up the money.”

The reporter interjected: “This one, not so much?”

Professor Philip Murphy: “Not so much!”

The reporter: “The Royal Family’s security bill has been estimated to cost Britain 100 million pounds a year, according to a report by Republic, but that’s just an estimate as the total cost is kept secret by the British Government.”

Dani Beckett: “That should be public information – if that was any other public institution –  if that was the Prime Minister, or MPs, we would have access to the amount of money that is spent on keeping them safe, out of the public purse.”

David McClure: “Most government agencies are open to Freedom of Information requests. But you know, the Royal Family is immuned. [sic]”

Upon request by the reporter: “Why?”

David McClure: “Well, I think they want to protect their own secrecy, really. I don’t think they’re making any horrendously powerful political intervention. I think they’re just overly protective, and they’ve always been secretive and they’ll continue with it.”

The reporter could see another side: “Whatever the critics might say about the Royal Family, it provides a sense of certainty at a time when Brexit and economic hardship is dividing the UK.”

What economic hardship?

Rita Clifton would concede: “Britain is having a slight collective nervous breakdown at the moment when it comes to social, political, in some cases economic issues. There is something enduring about the Royal Family brand. About the stability, the security, the longevity, the trust and so on, that actually is a very important property to hang on to at the moment. But there are challenges ahead. The preparations are quietly underway for when The Queen meets her maker.”

Emily Andrews: “I think it will be the end of an era for us in the U.K. when she dies. And her popularity is assured now. She will be one of the greatest monarchs that we have ever ever had.”

Robert Lacey: “It’s a funny old jalopy, the British monarchy, but the Queen has ridden it and steered the horses. And we’re very happy to keep on cheering it. And god, when, um, when people think about her going … Um, you know it affects me.”

Patrick Jephson: “There’s a whole generation of people now in old age who grew up with the Queen – a glamorous, young, innocent Queen, an inspirational figure that summed up so much of what people associate with the best of Royal virtues. The next monarch is going to be an old, white, bald man. Now, nothing against old, bald, white men, but in presentational terms, particularly in a society where youth is prized so highly, that’s not good.”

The reporter: “ ‘The Palace’ is hoping that ‘The Firm’ is well and truly back in business. And that the young Royals have future proofed the Monarchy. But the death of The Queen will be its next big test.”

Professor Philip Murphy: “And when she dies, there’s going to be a great sense of loss, a great sense of displacement. The popularity of the young royals is pretty high. But that could all change. They’re always only a scandal away from a dip in popularity.”

Patrick Jephson: “All I know is that the changes will be huge. And they will shake the institution to its roots and it will be an enormous stress test of what it thinks it is, what we think it is, what it’s for, what it stands for. And if it falls short on any of those, its prestige will suffer, it will I think encounter an extraordinary loss of confidence. And without confidence, monarchy becomes an empty shell.” (Windsor Inc. – Four Corners, abc.net.au).

A complete presentation of the Four Corners programme – a glaring example of infotainment – was, perhaps, not totally necessary. On the other hand, it would have been insufficient to say: the truth about the Royal Family and its members is being manipulated by expert PR-persons. It is the extensity of it which matters. It is the conclusion: that truth is becoming an abstraction, which matters.

Most of the participants are engaged in ‘constructing’ personalities which do not exist, or which exist only with their defects and cannot be taken for ‘reality’ in a show of truth-massaging, reconstructing or – as it seems the moment’s fashion – ‘branding’ and ‘re-branding’.

The imagined consequence of such activity is not a matter left to infotainment, innocuous, inane and perhaps just simply time-consuming.

The levity with which the subjects were approached, just mixed with some juicy information as to the wealth of the Queen and the ways-and-means of enrichment of the Royals, becomes even more intolerable if one looks at recent, and this time serious, information on Britain’s social conditions.

Continued Wednesday – Terminal adolescents (part 6)

Previous instalment – Terminal adolescents (part 4)

By Dr George Venturini  

The death of Princess Diana might have been a turning point for the House of Windsor. Recollection of that event gave Ms. Rita Clifton an opportunity to say: “From those ashes, a lot of lessons have been learned. There’s obviously had to be more deliberate management about how people behave, what they’re saying, what they’re wearing.”

‘The Palace’ negotiated a deal with the British press to leave Diana’s boys alone. The Royal media team worked with the Press Complaints Commission to create the strictest media regulations in Europe – banning the use of long-lens photography.

Patrick Jephson: “It’s worth remembering that inside palace walls, the media are pretty much regarded as the enemy. The next task was what to do about the Prince of Wales’ mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles.”

Stephen Bates: “[The media] had to sell her to the royal family as much as to the British public. They still had to go about it fairly discreetly, they still had to convince the Queen that she was someone who could be met with, be seen in public with. That was something that took a little while.”

Subsequently, the Queen was exposed to the cameras in a series of stunts and other occasions of unusual and difficult physical acts requiring a special skill, performed for artistic purposes usually on television. Such new moves were designed to endear the Queen to the British public, and make it believe that the Queen was some kind of a different person.

Emily Andrews confirmed: “Prince Charles appointed some very experienced PR professionals – such as Mark William Bolland, a British public relations executive who became Deputy Private Secretary to Prince Charles from 1997 to 2002, and Patrick Richard Harverson, L.V.O. who became Communications Secretary to the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, in addition to being Official Spokesman to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Until then, their major duty was really that of really rehabilitating Camilla Parker-Bowles. Emily Andrews thinks that had been successful because “certainly in the United Kingdom now she is quite popular.”

The reporter: “Project Parker-Bowles, as it became known, even won a PR Week Award for Royal media minder Mark Bolland. The judges noted that Bolland had overseen a massive sea change in the relationship between Prince Charles and the press.

As ‘The Palace’ spin doctors continued to win PR awards, they steered the hulking royal ship back on course.”

Interestingly, Stephen Bates and Patrick Jephson agreed on this: “It is a very professional operation in spin management, media management, media operations” which “has got into the bloodstream of the way Royal people do business.”

The media minders were helped by the natural charm of Charles’ son, Prince William as he grew up. And met his telegenic princess, Kate.

Omid Mio Scobie observed: “William and Kate became of interest and they were young and they were good-looking. Their lives were very interesting and Kate, this very normal girl, was about to take on an incredibly important role marrying the future king of the country. I think that was really the beginning of the rejuvenation of the Royal brand. The Queen has referred to it as ‘The Firm’ herself. It is a business.”

Next to be ‘rebranded’ was Prince Harry, who was transformed in the public eye from party boy to charismatic, modern prince.

And Ms. Rita Clifton was fully confident that the ‘re-branding’ would be successful. She should know. To give her full credit, she is Rita Ann Clifton, C.B.E., a British advertising professional and a former United Kingdom Chairman of Interbrand. She currently works as a speaker, facilitator, writer, and non-executive director of a portfolio of companies. Clifton has been called ‘The doyenne of branding’ by Campaign Magazine, ‘Brand guru’ by The Financial Times, and The Daily Telegraph described her as ‘The brand leading the brands’!

So Rita said: “I think what’s fascinating about the way that Harry and his advisors have developed his brand, his profile, is that he’s used some of the difficult background, some of the challenges that he’s had in his life, and made that feel like a proper, feeling, human being. It’s much more difficult to have a problem with a human being than an impersonal institution.”

Omid Mio Scobie could not help himself interjecting: “Now we have Harry and Meghan almost ushering in Phase Two of this modernisation of the monarchy.”

Rita Clifton: “In many ways, they’ve brought innovation. They’re brand innovators to the Royal Family.”

The reporter: “Every time Meghan Markle leaves the Kensington Palace gates for events like this one at the Royal Academy, the cash registers start ringing. In an age of social media, the young members of the Royal Family are the ultimate influencers.”

Rita Clifton: “It’s the most amazing thing! Particularly during the build-up to the wedding, I mean whatever Meghan wore, it was picked up, it was followed. Katherine wears a dress, the children wear whichever clothes they are, usually there’s a sell-out with days or weeks, sometimes within hours with some of the examples of what the children have worn.”

The reporter: “On a production line on London’s outskirts. My First Years is pumping out personalised children’s clothes. Everything changed for the fledgling clothing company in April 2016. When little Prince George was pictured wearing one of their dressing gowns while visiting former U.S. President, Barack Obama.”

Daniel Price: “So it was just incredible, I had 165 messages on my phone. I clicked on the link and I thought oh my god! That is our, that’s our dressing gown! I went on and I went into the office and we made sure that everybody was talking about that robe. So before Prince George met Obama, we had about 30 employees, altogether. Now, we’ve got about 110.”

Asked by the reporter: “So what figures did you put on each of those children?” David Haigh, C.E.O. and founder of Brand Finance plc. said: “Well I think some years ago, we said that in their lifetime, they would be adding something in the order of a billion pounds to the UK economy, but that’s in their whole lifetime.” David Haigh’s firm Brand Finance was credited for an analysis of the money the Royal Family injects into the British economy.

David Haigh went on: “Well in the case of the UK as a whole on a rolling annual basis, we estimate something in the order of two billion net to the UK economy. That’s pounds. It definitely seems to have an economic benefit to the UK economy. It’s almost undeniable.

The Royals are also patrons to more than 3000 charities … The Queen’s charities alone have raised 1.4 billion pounds.”

At this point Rita Clifton added: “Frankly, Britain needs the Royal Family right now and into the future. It has got the most extraordinary impact on tourism, on products and services that are in any way associated with the Royal Family.

The reporter: “Even when you think about it, global TV series. There’s endless amounts of interest in the stories of the Royal Family. The Netflix series, The Crown, only enhanced the brand.”

Robert Lacey: “There’s evidence that millions of people stay up all night, certainly in this country, to watch it end to end to end. I was talking to a member of the Royal Family, who has to be nameless, that’s the way it is, when you get close to them. They said, “We were very worried when we heard about The Crown coming along.’ There was anxiety in the Palace as to what a probing insight, dramatic account, of the family might do, but as this member of the Royal Family said to me, “it’s really turned out quite well” !

The reporter added: “Kensington Palace, home to the young royals, is capitalising on the fact that they are back in fashion again. Bypassing traditional legacy media with a sophisticated social media strategy. It has 6.7 million followers on Instagram – almost 13 times the number of Prince Charles’ account, Clarence House.”

Emily Andrews commented: “They film a lot of their own content, they take a lot of their own photographs, they even write a lot of their own stories and put them out through their social media channels, so through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, they even do snapchat.”

Patrick Jephson: “The control over what we read about the royal families is pretty much controlled by them. And they do that through heavy investment in digital media, through a very sophisticated series of trades and favours with their favourite news outlets.”

The reporter commented: “While the young royals seem very natural, everything is highly stage-managed by Palace minders.”

David McClure, a television producer and freelance writer and journalist, who is responsible for an interesting  documentary on the royal finances, contributed: “ ‘The Palace’, like all organisations, like to control their image, but I think ‘The Palace’ is more controlling than most, because the royal family, it’s not really about formal power, it’s about image. And therefore, it’s very important to project that image.”

The reporter noted: “Palace courtiers go to great lengths to protect the reputation and privacy of Brand Windsor. We’ve spoken to Royal Correspondents who say they’ve received an extraordinary dressing down from Royal spin doctors for seemingly innocuous stories. And they get threatening legal letters from the Queen’s London law firm, Harbottle and Lewis.”

Stephen Bates specified: “Harbottle and Lewis are probably the Praetorian Guard of the Royal Family. The Royal Family is an institution which has very little accessibility. I guess it rivals the Vatican. It’s very constrained, the access you get. So there is a certain degree of resentment, because ultimately, they’re an opaque body of people.”

To which the reporter added: “It’s often argued that the royal finances are also too opaque. London’s Regent St. is the city’s premier shopping district. It’s also owned by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate owns huge tracts of land across the British Isles. And 25 per cent of its profits are paid to the Queen to fund running of The Palace and official royal travel through what’s known as the Sovereign Grant.”

Dani Beckett, deputy chairperson of the campaign group Republic joined in: “In the past five to ten years, we’ve seen cuts to education funding, to domestic violence centres, we’ve seen cuts to libraries and the arts and the police and the national health service at the same time the Royal Family’s Sovereign Grant, which is the official money that they get from the government, which actually only amounts to about a quarter of the money that they get every year, keeps increasing and increasing.” … “I think there’s a great element of spin and Brand Royal is certainly being updated and the people doing that are very clever. But at the heart of it, it’s an archaic institution that is terrified of the general public knowing just how much power and wealth they actually have.”

Austin Vernon Mitchell, who was a British Labour Party member of Parliament between 1977 and 2015, added: “We don’t know where the money is invested. We don’t know where it’s spent. We don’t know what the income is. We only know what they tell us. But nobody really knows. We don’t have the figures.”

Challenged by the reporter “Should we know?”

Mitchell confirmed: “Yes, we should. We should.”

Austin Mitchell served eight years on the United Kingdom Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, which in 2013 had an inquiry into whether the Royal Family provides value for money. The Committee recommended that the Royals could help save money by opening up Buckingham Palace to the public all year round, instead of just two months to pay for 369 million pounds in renovations.”

And what was the Palace’s response to that?

Mr. Mitchell replied: “No. I think the Queen thought it would be inconvenient to have all these people trekking around, ‘hey, look at that! What lovely pictures’ when she got up in the morning in her dressing gown and came down for breakfast. So I think it is personal. It should be open all year round. The public own it, it’s a public palace, and it’s the public’s art, really. It would be monstrous to exclude them.”

The reporter brought the viewers up to date: “The Royal Family’s personal income comes from its private land estates. Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall was established in the 14th century to fund future kings. It’s enormously valuable … with land and business holdings worth 940 million pounds. The Duchy pays for the lifestyles of Prince Charles and his family. But while it funds the modern young royals, The Duchy has some antiquated traditions – as we discovered on the Isles of Scilly off the coast of Cornwall. We travelled to tiny Bryhar Island to meet Tony Berkeley, a hereditary peer in the House of Lords, who is critic of the Duchy.”

Interestingly, Anthony Fitzhardinge Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley, OBE, CEng, MICE, FRSA, FCIT, Hon FIMechE, Hon DSc, otherwise known as Tony Berkeley, is a British aristocrat and Labour parliamentarian.

Holder of an ancient English hereditary peerage title created in 1421, Lord Berkeley sits in the House of Lords by virtue of being created a Life Peer in 2000. Plain Tony Berkeley had this to say: “Very artificial. Very anachronistic and totally unsuited to the 21st century. It should have changed a hundred years ago or so.”

The reporter explained: “Lord Berkeley wants to reform the Duchy of Cornwall … which returned 22 million pounds to Prince Charles [in 2017], but doesn’t pay 19 per cent Corporations Tax.

Instead, Prince Charles chooses only to pay income tax at a rate nominated by him. Lord Berkeley has moved a private members’ bill in the British Parliament to see the Duchy pay Corporations Tax.”

“The Duchy – Lord Tony Berkeley jumped in – should pay tax like any other organisation in this country. Now, because the Duchy is calling itself a private sector body, it really can’t go on with this kind of ducking operation. It’s got to stand out like any other private body and pay its taxes pay its taxes and obey the law like everybody else does and it chooses not to at the moment. There shouldn’t be any special privileges or special arrangements.”

The reporter added: “Lord Berkeley’s wife Marian has lived on Bryhar, which is almost entirely owned by the Duchy, for decades. She’s spent hundreds of thousands of pounds improving her property with no help from the Duchy, which, when the lease runs out, has every right to take it over.”

Asked by the reporter: “What would you like to see change?”

Marian Berkeley said: “I would like to see, to be perfectly honest, I’d like to see the Duchy removed from the Isles of Scilly. There’s no reason why places like this should be run as big estates and have that hold over the inhabitants.”

At this point the reporter moved to a related subject: “The investment decisions by those responsible for the Queen’s private land holdings and wealth have also come under some scrutiny in recent years.”

David McClure, investigating writer: “The private wealth of the Queen is shrouded in mystery.” confirmed David McClure. “We don’t know how much she’s truly worth. A tiny glimpse was provided with the release of the Paradise Papers.  … [The Paradise Papers was a massive data leak that occurred in 2017 from a law firm [see A.B.C., Four corners, 6 November 2017: Paradise Papers, What is the leak and who is behind the firm Appleby?]   in Bermuda which  advised clients on how to invest their money overseas, and particularly in tax havens. Now among the documents, it was found that the Queen’s private estate had invested over 10 million pounds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. It’s slightly embarrassing to find out that the Queen had been investing in tax havens.”

Well, yes, when the Paradise Papers scandal broke, the Queen’s advisors said she was not personally aware of the offshore investments made on her behalf. What are the aides-de-camp good for, otherwise?

Continued Saturday – Terminal adolescents (part 5)

Previous instalment – Terminal adolescents (part 3)

By Dr George Venturini  

There is no question that Harry and Meghan represent some kind of ‘second phase’ of, as well as source of hope for the resurrection of the Windsor business house, the kind of relative new adventure that Ms. Rita Ann Clifton, C.B.E., a British advertising professional, would call “the brand innovators of the Royal Family.”

Patrick Jephson, now the founding partner in a ‘boutique communications consultancy’ operating from Washington, D.C., but for many years before Princess Diana’s private secretary and author of Shadows of a Princess, who was accused of ‘betrayal’ and is said to have angered the Royals after publishing the bestselling book, opined that the new ‘combination’ of Harry and Meghan is a “carefully crafted strategy, now in the ‘Royal bloodstream.’ ” Maybe.

“There are generations now of Royal spin doctors – he says – who have come into palaces claiming to be able to portray the Royal clients in the light that they want to be seen in.” Again, maybe. Dizzying stuff!

Again, Ms. Clifton pointed out how important is ‘The Royal Family’ to charity organisations. She says that: “… there’s the contribution they make to charity – 3,000 charities have a member of the Royal Family as their patron and the Queen’s charities alone have raised 1.4 billion pounds.”

Ms. Clifton believes that ‘the Royal Family’ brand is appealing in a divided world. “Britain is having a slight collective nervous breakdown at the moment when it comes to social, political, in some cases economic issues,” she says.

“There is something enduring about the Royal family brand – about the stability, the security, the longevity, the trust and so on, that actually is a very important property to hang on to at the moment.” (L. Milligan, ‘Windsor Inc: The corporate machine that’s led the Royal renaissance,’ abc.net.au, 29 October 2018).

The Invictus Games having closed on 27 October 2018, two days later the A.B.C. Four corners presented a rather full view of ‘Windsor Inc.’

Ably reported by Ms. Louise Milligan, the programme welcomed contributions from disparate persons. It was fairly frothy, light and entertaining but of little substance when not redundant with salamelecchi, an Italian word from the Arabic salaamalekum (actually: “peace be with you”) which translates the best as bowing and scraping.

For almost two weeks Australia had felt the full force of ‘a royal charm offensive’. The visit by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had been a triumph for the Royal couple and, particularly of the ‘House of Windsor brand’.

“I think the marriage…has injected a real shot of adrenaline into people’s interest in the Royal Family.” said a tabloid royal correspondent.

It is a world away from the scandalous 1990s when the Royal Family was embroiled in a rolling series of crises, indiscretions and P.R. disasters leaving them out of fashion and out of step with the times. Some were even talking about the end of the monarchy itself. “All bets were off with the Royals in the nineties. Spectacular own goals, things that 50 years earlier would have had discreet veils drawn over them: Camillagate, Squidgygate, Tampaxgate, all those terrible, terrible, gruesome little scandals.” said another authority on the subject.

The programme was designed to show how ‘the Royal Family’ has rebuilt its reputation and changed the way it manages ‘The Firm.’

“From those ashes, a lot of lessons have been learned. There’s obviously had to be more deliberate management about how people behave, what they’re saying, what they’re wearing,” ventured a global advertising consultant.

“It was the Royal family accepting that things needed to change if they were to survive. Survival is the name of the game for the Royal family.” said another.

The programme revealed a highly controlled operation with spin doctors and media management at the forefront.

“You don’t see it but … what we see and read about the Royal Family is pretty much controlled by them,” was the view of a former Private Secretary to the Royal household.

The Royals are increasingly bypassing traditional media and finding new ways to offer their message by joining the ranks of social media of influence. Those combined efforts have resulted in one of the most spectacular ‘rebranding’ exercises in modern times.

“In many ways, they’ve brought innovation. They’re brand innovators to the Royal family,” said the same global advertising consultant.

This new image has helped divert attention away from questions over the funding and financial interests of the Royal household.

“We don’t know where the money is invested. We don’t know where it’s spent. We don’t know what the income is. We only know what they tell us,” said a former U.K. member of Parliament.

As ‘The Palace’ prepares for the next generation to take the throne, Four Corners examined the very corporate campaign to future-proof the Crown.

The venue for the symposium on the Queen was ‘Cliveden’ in Buckinghamshire.

Ms. Flora Fraser Soros, an English writer of historical biographies, acted as moderator for the gathering of lesser known participants.

The reporter: “Also here is the Queen’s biographer, Robert Lacey, who was historical consultant to the wildly successful television series – The Crown.”

Mr. Robert Lacey, a British historian and biographer of Queen Elizabeth II ponderously remarked that the Queen has the apparently easier job of being what he called “a representative queen – whatever that may mean.

He then explained: “When a monarchy’s working well, it’s in harmony with the society it represents. A monarchy’s a bit like love. And many of the words associated with monarchy are to do with love and emotional values.”

The reporter noted that: “As she nears the end of her reign, Britain has fallen back in love with the Queen.”

Professor Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and professor of British and Commonwealth History at School of Advanced Study, University of London, explained: “In previous generations, [the Queen]  was seen as a slightly staid, slightly boring figure, But the fact that she’s managed to be this non-political Constitutional Monarch for so long is widely recognised, widely admired, now. So, she’s having this magnificent sunset.”

“Non-political Constitutional Monarch”? Clearly Professor Murphy is embracing the typical fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises. He was definitively begging the question.

Ms. Emily Andrews, Royal correspondent for The Sun, made her heavy contribution: “I think we are in a golden age of royal popularity. We’ve got the Queen, she’s 92. She’s bomb-proof! Her popularity is unassailed. When she dies it will be the end of the second Elizabethan age.”

She was followed by Professor Murphy: “You have the younger royals, who seem to be copying her playbook being very discreet, very non-political, not feeling the need to express their own political opinions. But they’re glamorous, they’re relaxed, they’re good with people.”

To which Emily Andrews rejoined: “And I think the marriage of Kate Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge, and Meghan Markle, now the Duchess of Sussex, has injected a real shot of adrenaline into people’s interest in the Royal Family.”

The reporter: “The wedding of Prince Harry to American actress Meghan Markle gave Windsor Inc. a whole new lease of life.”

Omid Mio Scobie, who  is a London-based American journalist and editor who has extensively covered the lives of the younger members of the British Royal Family for over seven years, added this: “Seeing Meghan take that role as the Duchess of Sussex and bringing in this massive societal change is incredibly exciting. I think for the UK, this is our moment, very much the same as when President Obama took a seat in the White House. It changed things for the future. I think that’s exactly what Meghan’s done by marrying into the Royal Family.”

The reporter: “For the royal image-makers of the 21st century, it was a PR triumph that showcased a whole new House of Windsor.”

Emily Andrews invited the present to reflect on “this multicultural wedding, we had a multiracial musician and musical display. We had the preacher. We had the Reverend Michael Curry. From the U.S. of A. I mean think he was only supposed to speak for five minutes. I think he actually spoke for fifteen minutes.”

Actually Ms. Andrews extended herself by emphasising: “Meghan’s biracial, mixed race, she’s the first non-white member of the Royal Family. It’s fantastic. Literally dragging this old, white, pale, stale family, dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.”

The reporter: “For choir conductor Karen Gibson, it heralded a new dawn for Britain’s relationship with the Royal family.”

Asked by the reporter: “How did you feel as a woman of colour in Britain about that moment?” Ms. Karen Gibson replied: “Very proud, actually. Very proud to be, to be setting a precedent. It was definitely a precedent, we know that. And very proud to be able to represent people of colour. I know it was a big deal. To the black community. And I think the wedding being so inclusive and so diverse, I think that’s done something for the country. I feel like something has shifted.”

A detour is necessary here to explain: Ms. Gibson is a choir conductor and workshop leader with Londons Kingdom Choir, that she founded. It was she who led the Kingdom Choir’s gospel performance of “Stand by Me” at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in May 2018, after which she was described as “Britain’s godmother of gospel.” One feels like being in the presence of a new planetary system.

The happy-go-lucky-new-and-improved Westminster System? Maybe.

At this point Patrick Jephson, the already mentioned Princess Diana’s private secretary, pointed out that: “Meghan didn’t know the black preacher. There was no long association there. It was put on for effect. In presentational terms, looks great. What’s behind it? Nothing much really.”

Amidst general surprise Patrick Jephson proclaimed that it was spin. “Yeah”, he said.

And to that he added: “There was an assumption that Meghan Markle was going to be a breath of fresh air and drag the fuddy duddy old monarchy into the 21st century. And that may yet happen, but I think it’s very unlikely.”

After which he made a sobering point: “[The Queen] is, after all, constitutionally, pretty much insignificant. Given that Harry is now way down the pecking order to the throne. And also, the monarchy, you know, it’s a very old institution. It has seen Meghan Markles come and go for hundreds of years.”

Where upon the reporter wisely noted: “The Harry and Meghan wedding is not the first royal marriage to be sold as a fairy tale and a moment of generational change. In 1981 the world watched as the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, married Diana Spencer. The fairy tale was a mirage. The marriage was deeply troubled and it was the beginning of more than a decade of disaster for the royal family… much of it self-inflicted.”

Stephen Bates, a British writer and award-winning journalist, author of Royalty Inc. a work which combines a history of the British Crown’s evolution through the modern age with a journalistic peek behind the curtain at the machinery which sustains the Windsors today, observed: “The Royals went off in several really questionable directions, the first of which, the nadir, was It’s a Royal Knockout. It was a really, really naff program, but terribly popular and the royals, or at least Prince Edward, thought the royals could cash in on this with. But, in his opinion, It’s a Royal Knockout was completely the wrong sort of message to give.”

In 1987 It’s a Royal Knockout collected the most sordid details of the Windsors’ private life, beginning with the following memorable exchange:

“Prince Charles: ‘I just live inside your trousers or something, be much easier’.

Camilla Parker-Bowles: ‘What are you going to do, turn into a pair of knickers. I think you are, you are going to come back as a pair of knickers.’

Prince Charles: ‘Or god forbid a tampax.’ ”

Stephen Bates commented: “All bets were off with the royals in the nineties. Spectacular own goals, things that fifty years earlier would have had discreet veils drawn over them. Camillagate, Squidgygate, Tampaxgate, all those terrible, terrible, gruesome little scandals.”

Patrick Jephson philosophised: “A lot of our energy and resources was spent on maintaining an untrue picture of the reality. And once you do that for a long enough time, once you invest enough money and effort and credibility in it, it has a corrosive effect on the whole organisation. We weren’t dealing in the truth. We were dealing in whatever today’s truth was and the media knew that, they could smell it and on a certain level we deserved all the crazy stories that were written because, uncomfortably, lots of them were true.”

Emily Andrews moved in: “With the war of the Waleses, how bad it was for the Royal Family? The Queen saying it was an annus horribilis, Windsor Castle burnt down. Charles and Diana divorced.”

Robert Lacey: “Fergie is discovered with her lover sucking her toes. How is that meant to give us an example of how we should live, particularly in difficult times? That of course is when Australia started saying why should we put up with this? Why should we look up to this? And people in England, Britain, were asking exactly the same question.”

Patrick Jephson remembered “when the Princess phoned me and told me that she and the Prince had had a final meeting, and decided to separate, my overwhelming feeling was of relief. My relief was because we didn’t have to pretend any longer.”

Princess Diana told him: “There were three of us in the marriage.”

And Patrick Jephson commented: “Yes, the annus horribilis was a series of PR disasters, but only if you think PR is a substitute for the truth. Ultimately, the annus horribilis was a PR triumph because against all the, or despite all the attempts we had made to conceal what was going on, the truth came out. And the institution survived it. Amid the crisis, the Palace called an emergency meeting of its committee, known as ‘The Way Ahead’, which was designed to salvage the monarchy.”

It is thought that the Queen ordered her children to sort out their private lives. Reforms were later introduced, including the Queen paying income tax, and trimming the number of Royals subsidised by the public purse.

Stephen Bates: “ ‘The Way Ahead’ was a group set up as the Queen grew a bit older, to try and look at the future of the monarchy and how it should conduct itself. How the organisation of it should be run, how the institution should evolve. It was more or less the first time that that had been done on a serious basis by Buckingham Palace and it did produce a slimming down of the hangers on and the flunkies. It was the Royal Family accepting that things needed to change if they were to survive. Survival is the name of the game for the Royal Family.”

Continued Wednesday – Terminal adolescents (part 4)

Previous instalment – Terminal adolescents (part 2)

By Dr George Venturini  

The latest ‘gift’ from ‘The Palace’ arrived, as already noted, with the visit by Prince Harry Battenberg and his wife, formerly Meghan Markle, now rebranded as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Prince Harry was coming to open and close the Invictus Games, and for a 16-day tour of Australia and New Zealand.

Their visit began on 16 October 2018.

The Duke and the Duchess of Sussex would be hosted ‘in style’, which – translated into the Australian conventional parlance – would mean: spending a lot of money after them.

The couple was ‘put up’ in a luxe rental in the expensive Point Piper neighbourhood with a listing price of $41 million, according to Vogue Australia. Only!

The three-story mansion has incredible views of Sydney’s impressively majestic harbour and its own private wing perfect for the royal newlyweds to have some time alone together. (S. Wax, ‘Inside Prince Harry And Meghan Markle’s $41 Million Australian Rental’).

It is one thing to celebrate the human spirit in the face of great adversity. It is another thing altogether to let the weapons manufacturers who helped causing the loss or disability of soldiers sponsor the celebrations.

The Invictus Games took place in Sydney in October 2018. Injured service personnel from eighteen countries took part. Invictus is Latin: ‘undefeated.’

Who could fail to be impressed by the triumph of spirit over matter?

It is highly inspiring to see the human spirit triumph over mutilations of the human body. Who can fail but be impressed by the fortitude of the participants, who faced life-threatening-and-changing injuries but found within themselves the strength to overcome?

Many could not do it by themselves alone. The Games are also intended to honour the non-belligerent personnel, the surgeons and nurses, and those engaged in painful rehabilitation, in the use and technique necessary to construct prostheses and equipment, and all the carers and family members who look after the invalids.

And for many who participated in the Games, many more could not even attend as spectators, lost in incurable state of mind, or consumed by post traumatic disorder which keeps returning in all its horrible ways: with flashbacks, nightmares or other episodes which often detach them from their loved ones – or anyone, really.

The return to civilian life is often rendered more difficult by bureaucratic stolidity and incomprehension; compensation is often contested, or tardy, or inadequate – or all of it.

Of course, on the prescribed occasions – mainly when remembering the greatest retreat on ‘the-one-day-of-the-year’ – will have some ignorant ‘politicians’ call them ‘heroes’, who suffered ‘in the service of their country’ and make a muck of the whole ceremony. Transplanted Englanders are rather clumsy at rhetoric.

Those words – ‘in the service of their country’ – have a hollow resonance. All the Invictus participants are from recent wars. As for the Australian participants, those who are alive may not know or care that in the major sixteen wars with Australian participation, Australians went in by choice, albeit not knowing why. Only in one of them – the second world war – they went in by necessity.

What most Australians do not know is that the supporters of the Games are American corporations, with profits in the 2017 as indicated:

1) Lockheed Martin, U.S.A., defence revenue, $47,985 million

2) Raytheon Company, U.S.A., defence revenue, $23,573.64 million

4) Northrop Grumman, U.S.A., defence revenue, $21,700.00 million

5) Boeing, U.S.A., defence revenue, $20,561.00 million

6) General Dynamics, defence revenue, $19,587.00 million

No. 3 is occupied by the B.A.E. Systems, with a revenue of US$22,380.04 million.

For completion: there should be reference to another American corporation: Leidos, which came out as No. 12 on the list, and Swedish Saab which was No. 32 on the list. (‘Top 100 for 2018’ (based on 2017 data). Defense News. as at 3 November 2018).

It all amounts to a murderous combine of killers-patrons.

B.A.E. Systems plc is a multinational defence, security, and aerospace corporation headquartered in London and with worldwide operations. Its largest operations are in the United Kingdom and United States, where its BAE Systems Inc. subsidiary is one of the six largest suppliers to the U.S. Department of Defense. Other major markets include Australia, India, and Saudi Arabia, which account for about 20 per cent of BAE’s overall sales. It is the biggest manufacturer in Britain.   It is a well-known secret that the Royal Family has a very large interest in the share portfolio.

It is relatively easy for armaments manufacturers to justify to themselves their production: the business of weapon business making is business. There! Slightly more time-consuming is to reconcile their core business with supporting the Invictus Games. Perhaps, that too is business. The organisers-on-the-ground might ask themselves why they allowed such an arrangement. But it is a passing moment, if at all. Business is business.

Consideration by ‘unsophisticated’ persons of the trade in weapons may raise another, dark aspect. What of the injured on our side? What of the terrible injuries inflicted on our ‘enemies’ – even those whom a reasonable person could never conceive as being a threat to Australia: Yemeni children who are killed by bullets manufactured in Australia and sold to Saudi Arabia? Both the T and M of the ATM governments boasted that ‘production’ success.

For the Australian government: no problem. And, of course, the manufacturers may supply both sides of a conflict. And that is business.

Injuries like those that our people bear are, no doubt, being born by others elsewhere – in countries less affluent than Australia, with fewer resources and less sophisticated medical treatments. They may be living lives of torment and utter desolation. Will they be arranging Invictus Games?

Very much like Remembrance Day: 11 November, which has been partly eclipsed by ANZAC Day: 25 April, Invictus Day may become one more day of national war celebration. There may be something more sophisticated than beer and two-up. But all that could be left to the organisers and the arms manufacturers to pay for. One needs not be a ‘thinky’ to see the advantage of it all!

No matter how ‘complete’ their ‘recovery’, the live of Invictus Games’ athletes were changed forever. Looking at them it is more than paradoxical that one can 1) support the games, 2) admire the inner strength of those taking part and 3) regret the fact that they are necessary, and all together.  (N. Deane, ‘Prince Harry’s Invictus Games, Brought To You By Arms Dealers, Figuratively And Literally,’ newmatilda.com, 15 October 2018).

“Not everyone involved in warfare emerges unconquered.” poignantly remarked Michelle Fahy in a fine contribution on ‘Invictus Games, glossing over inconvenient truths-the arms trade and the British royals’. Ms. Fahy is on the staff of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War. She wrote:

“Last year, at least 84 veterans killed themselves; that’s twelve more than the number of athletes in Australia’s Invictus squad. In 2002–2014, the rate of suicide was 13 per cent higher among ex-serving men compared with all Australian men. For ex-serving men in the 18-24-year range, the rate was almost twice as high as the national male average in that age range.

A 2018 report by the Centre for Social Impact at the University of Western Australia found that veterans are also over-represented amongst the homeless. During the study period more than 1 in 20 of the homeless people interviewed were found to be veterans. The veterans were more likely to be sleeping rough and 43 per cent of them had suffered a serious brain injury or head trauma. Unlike the US where veteran homelessness has received wide attention and a strong policy response, there has been very limited research in this area in Australia.

…

Given the focus on the ‘wounded warriors’ and their struggle to recover it is surprising to see that the list of corporate sponsors of the Games includes five of the world’s largest weapons manufacturers. The opportunity to sponsor a high-profile event of this nature makes business sense for the corporations concerned [Ms. Fahy named four of the already mentioned American corporations and Saab] and clearly they have no qualms about using it to create the impression of being good corporate citizens. But let’s get real, they’re in the business of profiting from death and destruction, despite the worthy-sounding euphemisms they and others employ to obscure that fact. It amazes me that Prince Harry, ‘the captain of his soul’ [with a reference to the British poet William Ernest Henley who said those words], supported by the leadership of his Foundation, finds it possible to accept the involvement of such sponsors in these Games.

…

Prince Harry and his relations continue developing their relationships with dubious regimes and corporations of no conscience, and facilitate arms deals between them.”

Ms. Fahy provides some reference:

“In 2010, Prince Andrew criticised the UK’s Serious Fraud Office for its attempts to investigate BAE for secret alleged payments to clinch arms deals (i.e. bribes). Andrew Feinstein, respected anti-corruption campaigner and former South African MP who resigned in protest over BAE bribery allegations, has noted: “The royal family has actively supported Britain’s arms sales, even when corruption and malfeasance has been suspected.”

Prince Charles has visited Saudi Arabia many times. A 2014 visit was immediately followed by an announcement of a multi-billion-pound Typhoon jet deal with the Saudis. Such was the outcry that Prince Charles reportedly said he “no longer wants to promote British arms sales in the Middle East.”

Along with the Saudis, the Queen has developed close ties with the Bahraini royal family despite its known abuses of the Bahraini people. The King of Bahrain sat beside the Queen at the gala event celebrating her 90^th birthday. Britain also sells arms to Bahrain.

In March [2018], despite growing condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s role in the war in Yemen, the UK rolled out the reddest of red carpets for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. During his visit he lunched with the Queen, dined with Prince Charles and Prince William, and was entertained by PM Theresa May at her country estate. If this is not a ringing endorsement from the highest level of British society, what is ?

Meanwhile, back in Australia, will any journalist raise with Prince Harry the apparent hypocrisy of hosting an event celebrating the resilience of the human spirit while concurrently accepting sponsorships for that event from companies supplying weapons of war to a regime that is helping create the world’s worst humanitarian disaster? These firms aren’t trying to hide it. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon are currently seeking new weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia. Would His Royal Highness care to comment?

It is difficult to see how these Invictus Games sponsorships are anything other than ‘business as usual’ in a long history of similar deals of varying scale in which the UK royal family uses its influence and prestige to facilitate arms deals for the benefit of a privileged few, at the expense of the human rights of the many.” (M. Fahy, ‘Invictus Games, glossing over inconvenient truths-the arms trade and the British royals,’ mapw.org.au, 19 October 2018)

No Australian journalist responded to Ms. Fahy’s call.

In the morning of 20 October 2018, the Duke of Sussex attended the Anzac Memorial service in Hyde Park, accompanied by the Duchess. He was paying a tribute to Australia’s war dead.

Prince Harry was wearing ‘Tropical Dress of the Blues and Royals’ and an array of medals. They were: the Pilots’ Wings symbolising his time in the Army Air Corps when Harry was flying Apache helicopters; the Afghanistan Operational Service Medal; the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and the Star of the Grand Cross Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, which represents distinguished personal service to the monarch. By the way, John Falstaff had to wait for Fraser to secure one such for Kerr.

On his left arm Prince Harry was showing the Napoleon’s imperial Eagle of the 105th Regiment of the Line, captured at Waterloo and symbolises honour and pride.

From the right shoulder Prince Harry also wore an aiguillette. Strange that there is no equivalent English word; ‘shoulder cord’ is really quite prosaic. Ah, much more impressive in French. N’est-ce pas?

The gold braid aiguillette shows that Harry is now one of the Queen’s personal Aides-de-Camp. Oops!

Prince Harry, or for that matter, all men – and some women – of ‘the Royal Family’ like to appear in different phantasmagoric uniforms, depending on the occasion, of course.

Just after twenty-year-old (born 15 September 1984), Harry appeared at a party dressed in full German Afrika Korp uniform with Nazi Party swastika on his left arm.

It was probably intended to be a joke, but even if was, it shows the good test and most certainly the strong tutoring in history imparted to young Harry at Court. (The sun, 14 January 2005).

Some European in attendance might have shivered just on recalling what that symbol meant to German-occupied Europe. But that, as the average Australian would say, is history; alternatively, the defence from ignorance would be that s/he was not yet born at the time the swastika crimes were desecrating an entire continent – and that includes good, old England.

Traveller would have been outraged.

After the visit to Hyde Park, Harry and Meghan changed into everyday dressing, took a private vessel  from Admiralty House in Kirribilli where they have been staying as a guest of Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove, and arrived at the Opera House, where Prince Harry delivered a ‘rousing speech’ to open the Invictus Games.

Because of an earlier drenching rain, the organisers had postponed the ceremony from 7:30pm until 8:30pm, and by the time the bagpipes fired up for the start the weather had cleared.

Thousands gathered to watch 500 competitors from 18 countries – including 72 Australian participants – march through the forecourt, with huge cheers echoing over the famous steps.

The athletes would compete in 12 sports across the week, with the golf and driving challenge – on Sydney’s Cockatoo Island – already started.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at the venue for a reception ahead of the ceremony, with Prince Harry given a standing ovation as he came on stage officially to open the event.

The Prince, who praised Australia for the welcome he and his wife had received during their stay, said Invictus was about “strength honour and optimism”.

“The Invictus generation is also about showing that being tough means being honest about how you feel inside out,” he said. “Remember, you are competing for one generation – the Invictus Generation … and you are going to put on one hell of a show.”

The Prince, who described the Opera House setting as “the most beautiful backdrop”, also implored the Australian public – and the people of Sydney – to get out and support the competitors.

“Australia, let’s show the world how it’s done.”

The soldier-athletes were always intended to be the true stars but a video featuring ‘volunteers’ such James Kimberley Corden, O.B.E., an English actor, comedian, and television host, Hamish Donald Blake, and Australian comedian and actor Magda Mary Szubanski, A.O., – in character as ‘Sharon’ from Kath and Kim – stole the “one hell of a  show.” There were the inevitable token presence of traditional Aboriginal dancers, and performances from Kate Ceberano, Lee Kernaghan and Birds of Tokyo.

The frequent  “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie” and “Oi, oi, oi” jangled chants made sure that a ‘local’ atmosphere would turn the occasion in the mindless, provincial event – what is ordinarily referred to as a ‘concert’.

What the athletes from other countries – except perhaps the knowing cousins across the Tasman – made of it is not known. (N. Sas, ‘Invictus Games opening ceremony takes over Sydney Harbour after storm delay,’ abc.net.au, 20 October 2018).

Other than that, one could see the occasion as a Harry and Meghan’s Circus Oz in action.

But, then, many Australians see ‘the Royal Family’ as a spectacle, with the main winning feature being plain old continuity – which brings a sense, almost, of immortality due to the fact the royals are essentially professionals at reproducing.

Their job is to look immaculate and appear healthy, be agreeable to the largest number of people, and find a suitable partner with whom to reproduce.

In the Philistine rhetoric of ‘mainstream Australian culture’, the average person born into wealth – who does nothing ‘to deserve’ it or contribute to society in ways which are actually commensurate with their riches – should be the subject of ridicule, even hostility.

S/he is, secretly, the object of admiration. And there is hypocrisy triumphant! That ‘sense of entitlement’, of having not had to work hard for what one gets, goes against some stock ‘standard values’ Australian society secretly holds dear. ‘Values’ like hard work, or better still, ‘having a go’, or being given ‘a fair go’. And that kind of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus’ empty talking has found its sublimation with the latest of the ATM squad!

The notion of ‘earning your way’ is abandoned in the general treatment of Harry and Meghan. In fact ‘the Royal Family’ represents the exact opposite of that principle. It is based on a system which operates on the rule that being born with ‘royal blood’ warrants a lifetime of obscene wealth, privilege and reverence before one can even talk.

It is La dolce vita for everyone in the circus.

When the headlines in Australia are dominated by the rising cost of living, the housing affordability crisis, slow wage growth and an inquiry into a fundamentally corrupt banking system which has been exploiting ordinary people – alive or dead – for years, the mind boggles at the inability – or is it unwillingness? – to see, think about and solve important society problem. ‘The Monarchy’ is a drug far worse than what is currently available on ‘the market’. (M. Graham, ‘Harry and Meghan’s Circus Oz’, eurekastreet.com.au, 22 October 2018).

As the spectacle continued, Ms. Fahy returned to her subject: “Invictus Games do nothing to remedy government failure properly to care for veterans.”

She found a clash between image and reality in the Invictus slogan, ‘For our wounded warriors,’ and the accompanying story of the Games:

“Most of us will never know the horrors of combat. Horrors so great that many servicemen and women suffer life-changing injuries, both visible and invisible, while serving their countries, while serving us.” [Emphasis added]

These words imply that the Invictus athletes were wounded fighting wars, but this is not so for all of them. It is hard to say for certain, as the information in the athlete profiles is inconsistent and in many cases lacks key details, but it appears about half of the Australian athletes do fit this description. The remainder were not wounded or made ill by combat, which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be included but it does raise the question of why organisers chose a slogan and story that don’t encompass all competitors. This is not mere semantics. One consequence of this marketing decision has been that those athletes not injured/ill due to active combat have repeatedly had to justify their presence in the team.”

Adding to the questions, the criteria which determined athlete selection lacks transparency and a number of athlete profiles omit sufficient detail unequivocally to verify the athletes’ eligibility. In at least one case, evidence suggested that the athlete was not injured during a period of military service.

And Ms. Fahy went on: “The responsibility for the ambiguous language, opaque selection process, and inconsistent profiles lies with Games organisers.”

It would not have been difficult for the talented Invictus marketing minds to create an equally powerful slogan encompassing all participants. Nor should it have been onerous to publish their selection criteria and present athlete profiles in a uniform and more specific manner. Indeed the Invictus website contains several examples of detailed documents relating to employees, volunteers, media, and even the general public. Had Games organisers been equally transparent with their marketing material and athlete selection criteria such questions as, “You weren’t injured by war, why are you in the Games?” would not have had to be addressed by the athletes.

Ms. Fahy found another conflict between image and reality.

“ … the Royal presence, ambassadors, celebrity endorsements, Vogue features, chat show spots, abundant media coverage, Cobber the mascot, and Wiggles ditties, all the glitz, creates the impression that something significant is being done for our veterans. However for thousands of veterans the excitement and camaraderie of the Invictus Games is far removed from their grinding daily reality,” she said, and she proceeded to outline some of the problems: One in five Australian Defence Force personnel feels suicidal upon ending service. In its July 2018 submission to a Federal Government inquiry, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia said that “VVAA advocates dealing with serving members, particularly those with mental health issues, have identified in Defence a lack of empathy, support and understanding of the difficulties being experienced by the serviceman or women and there is at least an impression Defence want the problem individual to ‘go away.’ ”

Chronic problems of homelessness and suicide remain amongst veterans, [Ms. Faby had covered them in her previous piece], yet there remains little reliable data on either issue and little appetite to fund necessary research. In a belated attempt to start addressing the pressing issue of veteran suicide, in August 2016 the Federal Government announced a $3 million, three year suicide prevention trial in the ex-ADF community in Townsville. In May 2017, after a nine month wait, Operation Compass finally commenced.

Unemployment is a major contributor to veteran suicide rates. A 2017 report by WithYouWithMe estimates veteran unemployment to be 30.2 per cent, over five times the national average. Yet the Federal Government allocated just $4 million in this year’s budget for the Prime Minister’s Veterans’ Employment Program, with a further $4.3 million to come in two years’ time.”

In this clash between believe and reality, as the former Prime Minister Turnbull had said: “We have to go beyond the memorials and the monuments and focus on the men and women, the real challenges they face – ensuring that they are supported.” The will remain fine words, signifying absolutely nothing if one contrasts the slow progress and paltry sums just mentioned with the staggering amount Australia has spent commemorating the centenary of the first world war over $50 million. This vast sum eclipses that spent by every other country, equating to an outlay of A$8,889 for each of the 62,100 Australian deaths in the first world war, compared – for instance – with the United Kingdom’s A$109 per death.” (M. Fahy, ‘Invictus Games do nothing to remedy government failure to properly care for veterns,’ johnmenadue, 26 October 2018).

Such discrepancy can only be explained with the complex of inferiority of people who still suffer from a ‘colonial’ mentality.

Continued Saturday – Terminal adolescents (part 3)

Previous instalment – Terminal adolescents (part 1)