THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Loyal to the Crown: Shifting Australian Public
Opinion on the Monarchy
Prepared for delivery at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Political
Studies Association, Sheffield, March 30 – April 1
Luke J. Mansillo
12 March 2015
Over the past half century the Australian public has remained divided on the issue of whether
Australia should retain the monarchy or become a republic. Clive Bean (1993) found there had
been remarkable stability on the issue and evidence of a long-term trend away from support for
the o a h ith a sudde de li e i
. This a ti le adopts Bea s
lo gitudi al osssectional methods to examine the social and political basis of public attitudes. This articles
analyses the Australian Election Study (1993to o pa e Bea s esults a d ea al se
earlier data from the National Social Science Surveys and Australian National Political Attitudes
surveys (1967-1990). Public opinion has been fluid and is now at a crossroads between the 1980s
high and the 1990s lows. Cohort analysis suggests socialisation impacts long term opinions.
Gender and ethnic nationalism also influences opinion.
It has ee put The su i al of the o a h i late t e tieth e tu B itai is a so iopsychological phe o e o of st a ge p opo tio s Billig [
]
: . If so the o a h s
survival in twenty-first century Aust alia is fa o e outla dish. What is o e pe ulia is o a h s
growing antipodean popularity. In the lead up to the 1999 referendum public opinion wilted for the
monarchy (Bean 1993: 191) in spite of this the referendum failed (McAllister 2002) as voters took a
least risk strategy opting to keep the Queen to one day vote for a congressional system instead of
alter a parliamentary one (Davidson et al. 2006: 866; Wellings 2003). I the efe e du s afte ath,
the e has ee a esu ge e of pu li suppo t fo the o a h . The o a h s fo tu es e e
expected to continually decline over time given previous cohort analysis evidence (Bean 1993: 204)
olste ed the effe ts of [...] edu atio a d eligio a d elated so ial ha ge. This a ti le
investigates the social basis for support for the monarchy and argues events in both the United
Ki gdo a d Aust alia i flue ed o a h s appeal i conjunction with the processes of political
socialisation and banal nationalism.
This article is a longitudinal analysis of Australian public opinion on the monarchy-republic issue. It is
an update of an article by Clive Bean (1993) which demonstrated opinion on the monarchy-republic
issue had then been stable until 1990. Bean noted that commercial polling on the issue showed a
shift away from monarchy in the early 1990s. This article demonstrates that public opinion on the
issue since 1990 has been anything but stable. Before 1990 was an era of general stability with
modest gradual declining support for the monarchy, which is well documented (McAllister 2011: 29).
An era of instability has proceeded. First a rapid decline of support in the 1990s, followed by
significant gains of support in the twenty-first century.
It is opportune to revisit the study of the monarchy-republic issue in Australia. In the intervening
years since Bean s analysis there has been a series of events with the potential to affect public
opinion. The 1990s featured significant royal scandals. These include the 1992 annus horribilis,
P i e Cha les a d P i ess Dia a s di o e i
, a d the death of P i ess Dia a i
. This
was followed by the failed 1999 republic referendum. More recently, the wedding of Prince William
and Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge and the birth of Prince George, has been a boon
to the monarchy. The monarchy has been modernised with an end to succession and royal marriage
anachronisms (Parpworth
. A ua te e tu si e Bea s a al sis it is o th etu i g to the
issue to investigate the social compositional factors behind opinion change over this period.
This a ti le uses Bea s
a al sis of Do Aitki s Aust alia Natio al Political Attitudes study
(ANPA) (1967a d Jo atha Kelle s Natio al So ial S ie e Su e s NSSS
-90). It
compares Bea s a al sis ith data f o Ia M Alliste s Aust alia Ele tio Stud AES
-2013)
usi g Bea s ethods. This is an attempt to update Bea s a ti le ith the ost e e t AES data;
comparing the era of stability with the era of instability.
This study compiles 46 years of academic public opinion data building upon previous research (Bean
1993). I find support sharply declined from 58 per cent in 1990 to 40 per cent in 1993 dropping to a
low of 34 per cent in 1998. Ian McAllister (2011: 29) described public opinion (as of 2010) as,
monarchy has attracted e e ed if odest pu li suppo t. The e as a pe e t i ease i
support from 42 per cent in 2010 to 47 per cent in 2013. The increase in support from 34 per cent to
47 per cent challenges the assertion of a mere modest support increase for the monarchy as an
institution of Australian government. Rather public opinion on the monarchy is at a crossroads. It is
2|Page
between the 1998 low of 34 per cent and the 1987-88 high of 60 per cent. It is worth questioning
why the movement of public opinion in both directions over the decades.
Trends in public opinion
Here I shall provide a brief overview of public opinion trends on the monarchy-republic issue as
recorded by fourteen academic surveys. It is important to note that responses vary to a small degree
on the exact question asked. Bean (1993: 192) noted that ANPA, NSSS and AES all have comparable
questions which ha e o l
i o diffe e es. 1
The fi st uestio asks espo de ts ho i po ta t do [the ] feel the Quee a d the ‘o al Fa il
a e to Aust alia a d the se o d uestio asks if [the ] thi k that Aust alia should e o e a epu lic
ith a Aust alia head of state, o should the Quee e etai ed as head of state. Fo the fi st
question there are differences with the number of response categories.2 Second there are minor
wording changes across the NSSS to the AES and ANPA questions and in the opinion of Bean
(1993:192) – and for that matter the author too – [t]he e is o easo to assu e that [...] these
small variations would have a
ea i g o the o pa iso s. O e all si e the efe e du suppo t
has improved in both absolute numbers who hold monarchist views and in strength.
There was reasonably stable support for the monarchy for both measures up to 1990 (see Table 1;
Figure 1) which is reinforced by commercial polling (Figures 2 and 3). Curiously before 1993, there
were significantly more people who wished to retain the monarchy but did not think the Queen was
terribly important; however this had changed by 1993. This probably is due to the 1992 scandals.
Commercial polling shows a leap from 36 per cent approval for the republic in 1991 to 57 per cent in
1992 (Bean 1993: 196). Murray Goot (1994:
also o i ates
as the ea he a high le el
of suppo t fo the epu li emerged – surprisingly royal misbehaviour and public opinion has been
neglected in academic discussions despite the 1992 height of public Royal misbehaviour.3
The strength of support for the republic has declined. In 1998 and 2001 respectively, 34 per cent and
pe e t, elie ed Aust alia should defi itel e o e a epu li . This has de li ed to 7 per cent
and 26 per cent in 2010 and 2013 respectively. There is a similar level of strong republicans in 201013 to 1993; however the weak republicans have fallen away declining from 33 per cent to 27 per
cent in 2013. The high level point of weak monarchist support is 2013 with 33 per cent exhibiting
weak support for the monarchy. Furthermore strong support for the monarchy is at its highest point
since 1990 – the damage from the annus horribilis may have been recovered. In 2013 importance for
the monar h as at a si ila le el to the
s afte P i e Cha les s a iage to Dia a. The AES
results mirror a similar analysis using International Social Science Surveys data (Kelley et al. 1999).
Ben Wellings (2003: 47o se es the failure of the republican campaign cannot be seen as a
1
The question used in the AES is adopted from the ANPA. Bean referred to the ANPA and NSSS similarities.
The ANPA a d AES ha e th ee espo se atego ies: e i po ta t , fai l i po ta t a d ot e
i po ta t. The NSSS has the additio al atego : ot i po ta t at all . It is assu ed that the ANPA a d AES
ot e i po ta t atego o espo ds to the NSSS ot e i po ta t a d ot i po ta t at all. In the
ANPA the uestio should Aust alia etai the Quee did ot ha e the fou atego ies ut i stead the
were collapsed into two categories. In 1967 only the importance of royalty question was asked.
3
Billig (2002: 2-15) wrote of the volumes of popular press and nothingness of academic press on the issue as a
fu tio of a ade i so iologists a d so ial ps hologists faili g to ide tit o a h itself as a p o le .
2
3|Page
victory for monarchism or Australian attachment to Britain. This e o e
strength of support surely must be seen as a victory for the Palace.
i
oth total suppo t a d
Figure 1: Public opinion on the monarchy: Importance and whether to retain
4|Page
Table 1: Attitudes towards the Monarchy-Republic issue, 1967-2013 (%)a
1967
1979
1984-85
Importance of the Queen & Royal Family
Very important
28
25
16
Fairly important
26
29
29
Not very important
47
46
31
Not important at all
24
(n)
(2007) (1996) (2979)
Australia become a Republic
Definitely Retain the Queen
35
Probably Retain the Queen
24
(Total Retain Queen)
(64)
(59)
Probably become a Republic
20
Definitely become a Republic
21
(Total become a Republic)
(36)
(41)
(n)
(1864) (2907)
Sources: Bean (1993); Australian Election Study, 1993-2013
a
1986-87
1987-88
1990
1993
1996
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
20
29
32
21
(1517)
18
25
32
25
(1646)
17
28
31
24
(2488)
13
22
65
(2335)
12
27
61
(1797)
10
21
70
(1856)
10
21
69
(1980)
10
23
68
(1731)
11
25
64
(1850)
13
25
63
(2055)
16
28
56
(3865)
32
27
(59)
20
20
(41)
(1512)
33
26
(60)
22
19
(40)
(1640)
31
27
(58)
22
19
(42)
(2481)
14
26
(40)
33
27
(60)
(2334)
12
29
(41)
30
29
(59)
(1730)
9
25
(34)
32
34
(66)
(1833)
11
25
(36)
26
38
(64)
(1960)
11
27
(38)
29
33
(62)
(1722)
10
30
(40)
29
31
(60)
(1830)
12
30
(42)
31
27
(58)
(2047)
15
33
(47)
27
26
(53)
(3841)
Percentages do not always sum exactly to subtotals because of rounding.
5|Page
Figure 2: Support for the Monarchy, 1969-2014, Newspoll & Roy Morgan with a quadratic trend;
R2=.515, n=57
Figure 3: Support for the Republic, 1969-2014, Newspoll & Roy Morgan with a quadratic trend;
R2=.564, n=57
6|Page
Methodology
In this article there are four a al ses. Fi st I epeat Bea s a al sis ith AES data from 1993 to the
most recent. Second I odif Bea s oho t a al sis. Third I estimate the effect of ethnic and civic
nationalisms on attitudes towards the monarchy with 1996 and 2001 AES data. Fourth I disaggregate
the model by gender at high and low saliency periods.
The data used is from the ANPA (1967-1979), NSSS (1984-90) and the AES (1993-2013). The results in
Bean (1993) are reproduced. The four analyses use the same variables with a few exceptions. Factor
analysis and reliability analysis indicate that both questions on the importance of and whether to
retain the monarchy are closely related measures of the same underlying concept. As Bean (1993:
197) did they are thus combined into a simple additive scale for the analyses coded 0 (most prorepublican) to 1 (most pro-monarchy).5 All independent variables are coded as dummy variables
with the exceptions of years of age, years of education and frequency of church attendance. The
variables are coded as Bean (1993: 197-98) described his variables. The second analysis investigates
cohort effects. It differs from the first analysis with age removed and a series of birth year cohorts
coded as dummy variables. The third analysis investigates the relationship ethnic and civic
nationalisms have to public opinion on the monarchy republic issue. The independent variables are
identical to the first analysis with the addition of civic and ethnic nationalism scales. The fourth
analysis investigates the effect of gender through disaggregation at periods of high and low salience
on the issue.
The four analyses use a wide range of social background factors which are known to influence
political attitudes and behaviour in Australia (see McAllister 1992; 2011). Each employs an ordinary
least squares regression to estimate the effects of each independent variable on attitudes towards
the monarchy-republic issue modelled on Bean s (1993: 197-99) study. The unstandardised
regression coefficient (b) increases are thus interpretable as proportional increases in pro-monarchy
(and anti-republican) sentiments for each unit of change in the dependent variable.
Each analysis predicts public opinion with the following social background attributes: parental party
preference (Liberal-National Coalition), gender, age, occupation, subjective social class, religion,
church attendance, urban-rural residence, state, birthplace, and political party identity. The first
analysis identifies the long term relationship between each observed social compositional factor and
attitudes. The second analysis of cohorts is in two parts. First it odifies Bea s
: 202) cohort
analysis a d se o d o st u ts a e sio to test politi al so ialisatio s effe t. Bean controlled for
the effects in the first analysis with the exception of age and he coded cohorts into 20 year cohorts.6
I revisit cohorts to test political socialisation with eight year cohorts to measure its effect between
the ages of 12 and 18 (Torney-Purta 2005). The third analysis determines if there is a relationship
between monarchism and the two nationalism measures which are produced using principal
components factor analysis from a seven question battery. The model investigating nationalisms is
compared to the model from the fi st a al sis ide ti al to Bea s
o igi al odel to show the
5
Across the 13 surveys with combined measures, the correlations of the two variables are between .7 and .8
a d the C o a h s alpha elia ilit oeffi ie t anges between .75 and .9. The variables combined make a
highly reliable scale.
6
Due to generational replace e t the efe e e atego i the ep odu tio of Bea s oho t a al sis has
been altered.
7|Page
change. The model with ethnic and civic nationalism scales has its measures produced from principal
component factor analysis of the nationalism battery included in the 1996 and 2001 AES (Appendix
1). This will determine the relationship of opinion on the Australian monarchy to ethnic and civic
nationalisms. The fourth analysis compares the effects of gender disaggregating gender in the model
in the first analysis; i.e. gender is removed and men and women analysed separately.
Social and Political Underpinnings of Monarchy-Republic Attitudes
The results from the first analysis are presented in Table . Bea s
:
esults a e
reproduced for comparison with the autho s a al sis from 1993 onwards. The first analysis reveals
from 1996 to 2010 parental socialisation did not have a significant relationship to attitudes on the
monarchy unlike the period before the republic was discussed. In 2013 parental socialisation reemerged as a factor of suppo t fo the o a h follo i g the o al a iage a d P i e Geo ge s
birth. Conservative partisan political identity has been a stable social compositional factor for
support for the monarchy.7 Bea
:
o luded that the pa tisa di ide ould e iggest
hu dle – this was passed with a dissolving of parental socialisation s i flue e ut the o se ati e
pa tisa ship hu dle the epu li a s failed to shift. Pa e tal so ialisatio s i flue e has si e
regained influence on public opinion. Generally the older an individual the more monarchist they
were; age had a larger effect from 1967 to 1993 but since 1996 the effect has significantly lessened –
in 2007 and 2010 there was no significant relationship for age and a small effect in 2013. This
confirms previous research (Kelley et al. 1999: 106). Urban dwellers remain more republican.
Education continues to have a mostly stable effect producing anti-monarchical public opinion and
there is a gender divide with male support for the republic higher. The resilient gender divide is
e usi g ith o e s edu atio le els ea hi g parity with men (Evans 1980) along with their
political attitudes – and in recent years becoming more progressive than men (McAllister 2011: 11220).
Class continues to make a stable impression on monarchy-republic public opinion. Those who
identified with the middle class or non-manual workers were relatively antithetical towards the
monarchy and stable in their opinion over the period covered. Trade union membership has been a
poor indicator of support over the half century; 1993 was an exception.
Protestant identity remains a stable and a good predictor of support for the monarchy. Those who
claim no religion more often tend to support republicanism. Religiosity, measured as church
attendance, has become a weaker indicator of support for the monarchy. This I interpret as a long
term secularisation on the monarchy-republic issue.
A pe so s i thpla e has a e du i g effe t o pu li opi io . Those o i Asia ha e lo e le els
of attachment to the monarchy; however this has been declining in recent years. Those born in
continental Europe had lower support for the monarchy than those born in Australia. This trend
declined from the 1980s to 2001 and no longer has a significant effect. Those born in the United
Kingdom or Ireland retain a large degree of support for the monarchy compared to those born in
Australia. The support for the monarchy from migrants from the British Isles has been stable over
the period unlike those from Asia and continental Europe. This could be an effect associated with
7
However in 1993 following the 1992 annus horribilis the effect for partisan identity is remarkably smaller.
8|Page
John Howard s a ipulatio of Aust alia ide tit to efle t the alues of the ajo it A glo-Celtic
population as Carol Johnson (2007) has argued; something this article will expand upon.
Some states retain greater residual support for the monarchy. Queensland and South Australia have
had higher support. In 2010 there were high levels of support for the monarchy in Tasmania when
the pregnant Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, a Tasmanian by birth, visited Hobart in the week
prior to the election. Royals apart from the Windsors have an impact upon attitudes to keep the
Crown in Australia.
9|Page
Table 2: Social background and attitudes towards the monarchy-republic issuea by year, 1967-2013: unstandardised regression coefficientsbc
1967
Pa e ts pa t p efe e e
(Conservative)
Gender (male)
Age (years)
Education (years)
Occupation (non-manual)
Subjective social class (middle)
Trade union membership
Religion (Reference: Catholic &
Other)
Protestant
No religion
Church Attendance
Urban-rural residence (urban)
State (Reference: NSW)
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Birthplace (Reference:
Australia & Other)
British Isles
Continental Europe
Asia
Political identity (Conservative)
Constant
R2
(n)
Mean on monarchy-republic
scale
(standard deviation)
1979
.06*
.02
198485
.04*
198687
.07*
198788
.04+
1990
1993
.03+
.05**
1996
-.10*
.004*
-.009*
-.03
-.04*
.02
-
-.03+
.003*
-.006*
.01
.03+
-.01
-
-.07*
.004*
-.018*
.01
.02
-.01
-
-.07*
.004*
-.011*
.01
-.05*
-.02
-
-.04*
.003*
-.006+
.01
.01
-.02
-
-.06*
.004*
-.005*
-.03
-.00
-.03+
-
-.03*
.003***
-.004
-.02
-.06***
-.04**
-
-.01
.001**
-.009*
-.04*
-.06**
-.01
-
-.04*
.001**
-.005
-.03+
.05**
-.02
-
.02
.001**
-.013***
-.04**
-.06+
-.03
-
-.03+
.002***
-.013***
-.05***
.00
-.03
-
-.03*
.000
-.014***
-.02
.03*
-.02
-
-.06***
.000
-.008*
-.04**
-.03*
-.01
-
-.05***
.001*
-.007**
-.05***
-.02+
-.01
-
.10*
-.11*
.10*
-.03+
.02
.00
-.04
-.02
-.03
.10*
-.00
.08*
-.02
.01
.02
.01
.04+
.08*
.10*
-.02
.15*
-.03*
-.01
.07*
.04+
.01
.08*
.09*
-.08*
.17*
-.03
.05*
.05+
.07*
.02
.05
.13*
-.07*
.15*
-.03
-.02
.02
-.01
-.00
.01
.10*
-.08*
.10*
.00
.03+
.05*
.01
.02
.05+
.08***
.00
.03***
.01
.02
.04+
.03
.02
-.01
.06**
.00
.02**
-.04*
-.03
.00
-.01
-.02
.04
.09***
-.00
.02**
-.05**
.02
.05*
.05+
.03
.00
.08***
-.02
.03***
-.06***
-.01
-.01
-.05
-.02
.04
.07***
-.04+
.01
-.01
-.03
.02
-.03
-.02
-.02
.09***
-.03
.02**
-.03*
-.01
.00
-.01
-.02
-.01
.11***
-.04*
.02*
-.04**
-.02
-.02
-.00
.00
.10**
.12***
-.03*
.01*
-.04**
.02
.03*
.05***
.01
-.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.02
1998
.05*
-
2001
-.03
-
2004
.01
-
2007
.03+
-
2010
.00
-
2013
.03*
-
.04
-.03
.03
.36
.12
(2054)
.53d
.09*
-.13*
-.04
.16*
.31
.25
(2016)
.56
.13*
-.18*
-.01
.18*
.35
.32
(3012)
.51
.16*
-.17*
-.12+
.21*
.28
.32
(1528)
.53
.09*
-.16*
.02
.16*
.28
.26
(1663)
.52
.10*
-.14*
-.09+
.15*
.29
.24
(2504)
.51
.10***
-.08**
-.03
.22***
.08***
.28
(1737)
.33
.10***
-.10**
-.10*
.19***
.24***
.20
(1364)
.33
.08***
-.05
-.01
.09***
.19***
.14
(1424)
.28
.10***
-.12**
-.06*
.12***
.21***
.17
(1532)
.28
.05+
.07
-.09+
.14***
.21***
.17
(1311)
.30
.07**
-.07+
-.03
.14***
.26***
.18
(1446)
.31
.12***
-.06+
-.03
.15***
.37***
.18
(1747)
.34
.07***
-.03
-.02
.13***
.34***
.16
(3225)
.38
(.36)
(.30)
(.34)
(.34)
(.34)
(.34)
(.32)
(.31)
(.29)
(.30)
(.30)
(.30)
(.31)
(.32)
a
Dependent variable scaled from 0 (most pro-republic) to 1 (most pro-monarchy).
+ sig ifi a t at p≤. ; *p≤. ; ** p≤.01; ***- p≤.001
c
All figures have been rounded to two decimal places, with the exception of age and years of education which are to three decimal places.
d
The means and standard deviations of the dependent variables at each time point are show consistency. There are minor measurements differences between the ANPA, NSSS and AES meaning the means are not a
good guide of the level of public support for the monarchy.
b
10 | P a g e
Sources: Bean (1993); Australian Election Study, 1993-2013
11 | P a g e
Cohort Analysis: Generational Political Socialisation and Attitudes
The second analysis (Table 3), investigates cohort effects as Bean (1993) demonstrated lifecycle
effect and several studies have pointed to the most impressionable years being from 12 to 18 where
significant national events have a disproportionate and enduring impact on public opinion (Jennings
and Zhang 2005; Schuman et al. 1998; Schuman and Rogers 2004; Torney-Purta 2005). Critical
events leave their mark upon children and adolescence that quickly can change their political views.
Dennis and Webster (1975) found the opinions on the US president of those as young as seven years
old shifted after the Watergate Scandal. Sears and Valentino (1997) hold pre-adult socialisation
produces stable predispositions which are catalysed by exogenous political events. These events
socialise attitudes selectively, only in the specific domains they make salient ; thus longstanding
predispositions are socialised episodically rather than incrementall . The
Whitla dis issal,
the 1992 annus horribilis, and lead up to the 1999 referendum provide three critical episodes; first
misuse of royal prerogative, second royal misbehaviour and increasing saliency of monarchy as an
issue and third lead up to the 1999 referendum. This analysis sets out to empirically test the
generational difference of public opinion based upon their political socialisation. Generational
responses to the annus horribilis, referendum, the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
and the birth of Prince George are covered. Here I shall discuss some notable cohorts.
Bea s odel fi ds little di e ge e et ee the
-1959 and 1960-1979 cohorts. While from
2001 to 2010 the generation born 1980 onwards is indistinguishable from the cohort born 19201939. Unsurprisingly the generation born before 1920 held the most monarchist views. Furthermore
as each of the five cohorts in Beans model age the general trend is for increasing support for the
monarchy. For example the 1960-79 cohort has unstandardised coefficients ranging from -.15 to -.10
in the 1980s reducing the -.12 to -.04 in the 2000s.
The autho s odified oho t a al sis fi ds hildhood and adolescent political socialisation
influences opinion on the monarchy. Those born from 1916-1923 experienced the year of three
kings, those born 1932-1939 experience the 1952 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, those born 19551963 were socialised when Whitlam was ousted in 1975, those born 1964-1970 experienced Prince
Cha les a iage i
, those o
o al is eha iou , P i ess Dia a s death a d the
referendum, and those born after 1986 experienced the new generation of royals, namely princes
William and Harry, come of age.
The generation born 1916-1923 exhibit significantly higher support for the monarchy than the 19241931 cohort. This group was of prime socialisation age in when the 1936 year of three kings rocked
the Court of St. Ja es. F o
to
the e is e ide e to suggest this oho t s highe le el of
support compared to the 1924-1931 cohort could be attributed to that political experience.
Those born in 1932-1939 where impressionable when Queen Elizabeth II was coronated in 1953.
Compared to the generation born 1940-47 they have higher levels of support for the monarchy. The
different levels of support disappeared in 1996 reappearing in 2010.
The 1955-1963 cohort has the most resilient passion against the monarchy. From 1979 to 1993 and
reappearing in 2001 and 2007 to 2013 they had the most longstanding republican sentiments. They
were the only cohort to a strengthen their anti- o a his esol e i
i the efe e du s
aftermath. While from 2007 to 2013 the cohort exhibits the highest level of republicanism. This is
12 | P a g e
congruent with the effect early experiences have on childhood and adult political development
(Sears and Brown 2013: 59-60). This disposition has lasted through the lifespan.
Similar to the 1955-1963 cohort, those born from 1964-70 were particularly republican from 1984 to
1993 and again in 2007 and 2010. From 1984 to 1986 this cohort exhibited stronger antimonarchical
feelings than the 1955-1963 cohort. At the time of the Whitlam Dismissal many were five through
eleven year olds in this cohort. The cohort responded in a similar way to the seven and eight year old
children did to Watergate (Dennis and Webster 1975). In 2013 following the royal wedding and
P i e Willia s a iage the e is o sig ifi a t difference between the 1932-39 and 1964-70
cohorts. This cohort has not remained set by their early childhood experiences; they have developed
their views during their life course (Sapiro 1994: 204). In 2007 the 1955-1963 and 1964-1970 cohorts
had similar levels of republicanism. By 2010 a gap between the 1955-1963 and 1964-1970 cohorts
had emerged, and by 2013 1964-1970 had no significant difference compared to 1932-39 the cohort,
unlike those born in 1955-1963. One cohort warmed to monarchy, while another did not. On the
monarchy issue, political socialisation at after the age of 12 has more long-lasting impressions than
before the age of 12.
The cohorts born 1979-1985 and 1986-1995 exhibit no significant difference from the 1932-39
cohort. The first was socialised with royal misbehaviour characterising the period and the death of
Diana and the second the coming of age of the new royals.
Public opinion is structured around age cohorts created through socialisation impacted by
exogenous political events. Since 2007 the generation politically socialised during the Whitlam
dismissal is the only generation which shows overt negative attitudes towards the monarchy. This
confirms Sears and Valentino (1997), exogenous shocks to the political system crystallise thought.
Only the Whitlam dismissal and not the annus horribilis, could be deemed to crystallise thought on
the monarchy while also confirming some cohort opinions did evolve more than others during
adulthood as expected (Sapiro 1994) but within the period of royal renewal. Royal misbehaviour
appears not to have affected those born after 1979 but instead temporarily damaged opinion (Figure
2). Those who had developed the cognitive capacity for abstract thought when Whitlam was
dismissed (Sears and Brown 2013:
had g eate esilie e thus the e og itio of the p o le of
monarchy is more enduring for that cohort (Billig 2002: 7-12).
13 | P a g e
Table 3: Cohort Analysis
Born before 1920
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1920-1939 (Ref.)
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1940-1959
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1960-79
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1980 onwards
(proportion in cohort)
Born before 1892
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1892-1899
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1900-1907
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1908-1915
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1916-1923
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1924-1931
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1932-1939
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1940-1947
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1948-1954
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1955-1963
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1964-1970
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1971-1978
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1979-1985
(proportion in cohort)
Born 1986-1995
(proportion in cohort)
(n)
1967
.13***
(.41)
(.44)
-.03
(.15)
.09
(.01)
.14**
(.04)
.09**
(.10)
.06+
(.13)
.04
(.16)
-.05+
(.19)
(.21)
-.07*
(.15)
-.36
(.00)
1979
.10***
(.21)
(.31)
-.08***
(.42)
-.05
(.04)
.22+
(.00)
.13+
(.01)
.11**
(.05)
.09**
(.09)
.08*
(.11)
.00
(.15)
(.12)
-.05
(.14)
-.08**
(.16)
-.06*
(.17)
1984-85
.08***
(.14)
(.26)
-12***
(.46)
-.14***
(.14)
-
1986-87
.06*
(.09)
(.31)
-.11***
(.43)
-.15***
(.14)
-
1987-88
.10***
(.09)
(.27)
-.09***
(.46)
-.10***
(.18)
-
.03
(.01)
.15***
(.03)
.12***
(.06)
.14***
(.10)
.06**
(.10)
(.10)
-.04+
(.15)
-.07***
(.18)
-.09***
(.22)
-.12***
(.05)
.03
(.00)
.04
(.01)
.12**
(.04)
.11***
(.08)
.03
(.12)
(.17)
-.05*
(.17)
-.07**
(.15)
-.13***
(.20)
-.17***
(.05)
.03
(.01)
.15*
(.01)
.08+
(.04)
.07*
(.08)
-.02
(.11)
(.12)
-.06*
(.17)
-.10***
(.17)
-.12***
(.21)
-.09**
(.09)
(2054)
(2016)
(2898)
(1511)
(1638)
1990a
.02
(.09)
(.30)
-.11***
(.40)
-.13***
(.21)
-
1993
.05+
(.06)
(.32)
-.09***
(.40)
-.09***
(.22)
-
1996
.02
(.04)
(.25)
-.05*
(.39)
-.04+
(.32)
-
1998
.11*
(.03)
(.26)
-.03
(.39)
-.04+
(.32)
-
.11
(.01)
.08+
(.03)
.06*
(.09)
.02
(.12)
(.14)
-.06*
(.13)
-.12***
(.15)
-.09***
(.19)
-.10***
(.11)
-.13**
(.03)
.04
(.00)
.08*
(.04)
.07*
(.07)
.00
(.12)
(.14)
-.06*
(.15)
-.08***
(.15)
-.10***
(.17)
-.10***
(.09)
-.02
(.05)
.08
(.01)
-.11
(.01)
.04
(.06)
.06
(.07)
(.14)
-.01
(.13)
-.03
(.15)
-.03
(.20)
-.05
(.14)
-.03
(.10)
.01
(.00)
.11
(.01)
.08+
(.03)
.01
(.07)
(.17)
-.02
(.13)
-.04
(.14)
-.02
(.20)
-.04
(.12)
-.02
(.10)
-.01
(.03)
.28
(.01)
.04
(.03)
.07*
(.07)
(.15)
-.00
(.13)
-.01
(.13)
-.05*
(.19)
-.01
(.13)
-.01
(.10)
.01
(.06)
(2371)
(1771)
(1433)
(1530)
(1633)
2001
.16**
(.01)
(.25)
-.04+
(.36)
-.04+
(.33)
-.02
(.05)
2004
-.02
(.01)
(.20)
-.05*
(.38)
-.07***
(.29)
-.03
(.08)
2007
.06
(.01)
(.18)
-.07***
(.40)
-.06**
(.28)
.01
(.10)
2010
-.04
(.00)
(.10)
-.12***
(.33)
-.12**
(.36)
-.05+
(.21)
2013
-.06
(.00)
(.05)
-.05*
(.30)
-.07*
(.39)
-.05*
(.26)
.09
(.00)
.18***
(.02)
.15***
(.06)
(.16)
-.02
(.12)
.02
(.15)
-.01
(.18)
.01
(.10)
-.02
(.10)
.04
(.08)
-.07
(.01)
(1417)
.02
(.00)
.05
(.00)
.10+
(.02)
.08*
(.05)
(.15)
-.02
(.14)
-.04+
(.16)
-.07**
(.18)
-.06*
(.10)
-.01
(.09)
.05
(.07)
.01
(.04)
(1554)
.05
(.00)
-.08
(.01)
.03
(.03)
(.07)
-.10**
(.11)
-.12***
(.11)
-.15***
(.18)
-.10**
(.15)
-.10**
(.11)
-.04
(.12)
-.04
(.11)
(1747)
.02
(.00)
.14+
(.00)
.12**
(.02)
(.05)
.01
(.10)
-.05+
(.12)
-.08**
(.16)
-.03
(.13)
-.02
(.13)
-.03
(.12)
-.03
(.15)
(3225)
Sources: Australian National Political Attitudes survey, 1967-79; National Social Sciences Survey, Integrated 1984-88 file (1993 release) & Election Panel, 1990; Australian Election Study, 1993-2013
a
The 1990 Election panel file held by the Australian Data Archive no longer has all independent variables; the country of birth is missing from this analysis unlike Bean (1993.
14 | P a g e
The e uatio of
o a chy a d atio
Nationalism studies in recent years have been a fertile ground of academic discussion. Discourses on
the di isio of the o ld i to us a d the , ho a atio hege o ises, ho atio s ep odu e
themselves and how the nation operates through institutions have been active in the last two
decades (Özkirimli 2005). There is ample reason to test the relationship of the national institution of
monarchy to types of nationalisms. The dominate conceptualisation of nationalism is a split
between civic nationalism (variously labelled political, individualistic and voluntary) and ethnic
nationalism (variously termed cultural, collective and organic) (Özkirimli 2005: 22). The strength of
each nationalism will be tested here using data from the 1996 and 2001 AES. This inquiry is justified
with scholars such as Billig (2
:
asse ti g i B itai that the e uatio of o a h ith the
nation implies an attack upon monarchy is an attack upon the fundamental uniqueness of the
nation. So e a gue McGregor 2006: 503) Aust alia has a o posite atio alis fusi g B itishness
into an Australian identity which is highly contested (Warhurst 1993).
Both 1996 and 2001 data indicates there is a clear relationship to Australian ethnic nationalism and
the monarchy while the relationship towards Australian civic nationalism is less clear (Table 4). In
1996 before the 1999 campaign on the referendum there was a reasonably strong relationship
between civic nationalism and support with the monarchy. By 2001 there was no significant
relationship between support for the monarchy. However in the model the partial coefficient flipped
and the p value is 0.069 – approaching significance. There are 6.9 civic nationalists in every hundred
whom have a positive opinion on the monarchy. This evidence suggests that after the referendum
civic nationalism may not have discontinued its positive relationship to monarchy but also became
opposed to monarchy.
Unsurprisingly urban and conservative political identity becomes less powerful forces when the
nationalism scales are added to the model. This indicates that conservatives and rural dwellers tend
to be more ethnic nationalist. However republican sentiments in urban Australia were considerably
stronger after the referendum. Similarly in 2001 class with the nationalism measures emerged as an
important factor as the middle class were more republican. Age in the model with nationalism
measures is a less powerful predictor of support for the monarchy. This is possibly a function of
different cohort socialisation with different national ethnic compositions.
15 | P a g e
Table 4: Monarchism and nationalism
Pa e ts pa t p efe e e Co se ati e
Gender (male)
Age (years)
Education (years)
Occupation (non-manual)
Subjective social class (middle)
Trade union membership
Religion (Reference: Catholic & Other)
Protestant
No religion
Church Attendance
Urban-rural residence (urban)
State (Reference: NSW)
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Birthplace (Reference: Australia & Other)
British Isles
Continental Europe
Asia
Political identity (Conservative)
Ethnic Nationalism Scale
Civic Nationalism Scale
Constant
R2
(n)
Mean on monarchy-republic scale
(standard deviation)
1996
Model 1
Model 2
b
β
b
β
.02
.03
.01
.02
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
.001
.07**
.001
.06*
-.009 -.07*
-.007 -.05+
-.04
-.07*
-.04
-.06*
-.06
-.09*** -.05
-.08**
-.01
-.01
-.00
-.00
.06
.09**
.06
.09**
.00
.00
.01
.02
.02
.08**
.02
.08**
-.04
-.06*
-.02
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.02
-.03
.00
.00
.01
.01
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.01
.04
.02
.03
.01
.10
.10***
.15
.14***
-.10
-.07**
-.07
-.05+
-.10
-.06*
-.08+ -.04+
.19
.30***
.19
.30***
.26
.15***
.12
.05*
.24
-.01
.20
.23
(1364)
(1297)
.33
.33
(.31)
(.31)
2001
Model 1
Model 2
b
β
b
β
-.03
-.04
-.02
-.03
.02
.03
.01
.02
.001
.07**
.001
.05*
-.013 -.10*** -.010 -.08**
-.04
-.07**
-.04
-.06*
.06
.04+
.06
.05*
-.03
-.04
-.02
-.03
.08
.13***
.08
.12***
-.02
.03
-.01
-.01
.03
.10***
.03
.09***
-.06
-.10*** -.04
-.07**
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.01
-.05
-.04
-.04
-.03
-.02
-.02
-.02
-.02
.04
.02
.03
.02
-.10
.09***
.13
.12***
-.12
-.08**
-.10
-.06*
-.06
-.06*
-.05
-.05*
.12
.19***
.12
.19***
.20
.13***
-.09
-.05+
.21
.16
.17
.18
(1532)
(1466)
.28
.28
(.30)
(.30)
Source: Australian Election Study, 1996 & 2001
It is clear from the 1996 and 2001 data that ethnic nationalism has a strong and stable relationship
to public opinion on the monarchy and the relationship of civic nationalism and public opinion
altered in the period. The level of ethnic nationalism increased in Australia from 1996 to 2001 (Table
5) with the mean positio the s ale i easi g o e ti e. This fits ell ith a al ses of Ho a d s
manipulations of values and identity (Johnson 2007).
While the 2013 AES did not have a battery of questions measuring the different nationalisms the
2013 Australian Social Attitudes Survey (AuSSA) did. On identical questions the median Australian
has become more civic nationalist and less ethnic nationalist since 2001 (Appendix 1; Table 5).
Simultaneously since 2001 attitudes towards the monarchy have improved. A triangulation of data
suggests with reasonable confidence that the link between civic nationalism and the monarchy has
probably returned. This is indicated by the stable link between ethnic nationalism and opinion on the
monarchy, the 11 per cent improvement in public opinion towards the monarchy from 2001 to 2013
(to a point above 41 per cent where civic nationalism held some sway on opinion towards the
monarchy in 1996; see Table 1) and the electorate becoming more civic nationalist and less ethnic
nationalist.
16 | P a g e
Table 5: Nationalism Scale Means, 1996, 2001 & 2013
Mea
μ
Ethnic Nationalism Scale
Civic Nationalism Scale
Difference
(n)
1996
2001
.556
.813
+.263
(1693)
.588
.769
+.181
(1896)
2013
.473
.804
+.331
Change
(1996-2001)
+.032
-.044
-.082
-
(1465)
Source: Australian Election Study, 1996 & 2001; Australia Survey of Social Attitudes, 2013
Change
(2001-2013)
-.115
+.035
+.150
-
A Wo a s ‘eal : a ge de pe spective
In Talking of the Royal Family, Billig
:
fou d the diffe e es et ee
ales a d fe ales,
fou d o the uestio a out i te est , i tuall disappea ed o [... the] a olitio of the o a h .
The pervious analysis (Table 2) indicates that unlike Britain, in Australia, there is a gender divide on
the question of abolition. Here opinion on the monarchy is disaggregated by gender in two periods;
at a height point of saliency, before the 1999 referendum using 1998 data, and at a low point of
salience, following the birth of Prince George using 2013 data.
When the data is disaggregated by gender, only male migrants from the British Isles exhibit a greater
support for the monarchy. Female British migrants are not significantly different from women born
i Aust alia. This is t ue i oth pe iods he e the o a h s salie e as a issue is oth high a d
low. The class dynamics differ by gender as expected. Women load more on class identity while men
load more on occupation; a product presumably of disrupted labour force status through pregnancy
and child rearing expectation that are social norms.
When comparing high saliency to low saliency periods, education, age, Asian migrants and trade
unionism appear to have unique features. In periods of high saliency there is no gender difference
on education while there is an effect for women in periods of low saliency, unlike men. There is no
effect for age in periods of high saliency while in periods of low saliency age effects only men. This
fits ell ith Billig s
:
-201) work on gender and the monarchy. In periods of low saliency
female Asian migrants are more opposed to the monarchy than male Asian migrants. In periods of
high saliency female trade union members are more opposed to the monarchy than male trade
u io
e e s; this p o a l elated to Aust alia o e s diffi ult to elate to the ‘o al Fa il
given the wealth difference (Black and Smith 1999).
17 | P a g e
Table 6: Gender and monarchism
1998
Male
Pa e ts pa t p efe e e Co se ati e
Age (years)
Education (years)
Occupation (non-manual)
Subjective social class (middle)
Trade union membership
Religion (Reference: Catholic & Other)
Protestant
No religion
Church Attendance
Urban-rural residence (urban)
State (Reference: NSW)
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Birthplace (Reference: Australia & Other)
British Isles
Continental Europe
Asia
Political identity (Conservative)
Constant
R2
(n)
Mean on monarchy-republic scale
(standard deviation)
β
.07+
.07+
-.03
-.09*
-.04
.01
.14**
.03
.08*
-.06
-.03
.07+
.05
.00
-.01
.10**
-.00
-.01
.19***
.14
(717)
.26
(.29)
b
.05
.001
-.003
-.05
-.02
.01
.08
.02
.02
-.03
-.02
.05
.05
.00
-.01
.10
-.01
-.01
.11
.13
Female
b
β
.05
.07+
.001
.07+
-.005 -.03
-.01
-.02
-.07
-.11**
-.06
-.08*
.10
.17***
-.02
-.02
.02
.08*
.06
-.10**
.06
.08*
.05
.06
.06
.05
.06
.05
.01
.01
.05
.05
-.11
-.06
-.01
-.01
.08
.12**
.19
.15
(707)
.31
(.30)
2013
Male
b
.03
.002
-.004
-.06
-.01
-.03
.13
-.04
.01
-.04
.01
.02
.10
.03
.00
.08
-.07
.04
.12
.25
β
.04
.08***
.03
-.09***
-.02
-.04+
.18***
-.06+
.04
.06*
.02
.02
.09***
.03
.00
.07**
-.04+
.03
.19***
.17
(1600)
.36
(.32)
Female
b
β
.03
.04
.000
-.01
-.013 -.09***
-.04
-.06*
-.03
-.05*
.01
.01
.12
.17***
-.03
-.04
.01
.04
-.04
-.06*
.03
.04
.05
.06*
.04
.03
-.01
-.01
-.04
-.02
.05
.03
.02
.01
-.08
-.06*
.13
.19***
.39
.15
(1624)
.40
(.32)
Source: Australian Election Study, 1998 & 2013
Discussion
Over the last half century public opinion on the monarchy-republic issue has not been stable. The
observed data indicates instability from 1990 to 2013. First support dropped to the low of 34 per
cent total support in 1998, prior to the 1999 referendum to alter the constitution to replace the
Queen with a president elected by the parliament.13 Support increased to 47 per cent by 2013.
Monarchism is at its highest level of support since 1990 though some (McAllister 2011: 29) have
p e iousl des i ed the t e d as odest . The e o e i
o a his s suppo t appea s ot to e
modest and instead is a significant departure from the lows of the late 1990s to a more resilient
level closer to its historical trend from 1967 to 1990. This represents a crossroads of support for the
monarchy in Australia. Inferring causation is difficult with cross-sectional data therefore here I will
describe context and potential sources of public opinion change. While evidence for political
so ialisatio patte s appea to e plai the ulk of opi io ha ge it is o th dis ussi g o a h s
relationship other social psychological phenomena.
There are two competing explanations for the shifts in public opinion. To o o Walte Bagehot s
([1867] 2009) terminology, first there is an efficient thesis and a dignified thesis. These are two
separate narratives that intertwine and are inseparable; however focus could be given to either. It is
probably that both play a significant part in producing public opinions shifts. The efficient thesis
13
In 1999 a recorded low of 25% of Australians were monarchists if data from the 1999 Australian
Constitutional Referendum Study is used, however the respondents were primed by the context of the
referendum (McAllister 2002: 256).
18 | P a g e
i ludes o a h s do esti politi isatio , p olo ged de ate leadi g up to the efe e du , a d
Joh Ho a d s a ipulatio of alues a d ide tit Gul a elli 2014; Johnson 2007). The dignified
thesis emphasise aspects of 1990s royal misbehaviour followed by princes William and Harry coming
of age. I will then discuss Billig s (1995) banal nationalism thesis as a social psychological explanation
for support for the monarchy as banal royalty a d dis uss Aust alia s o posite i i a d eth i
nationalism and its potential relationship to opinion on the monarchy.
Efficient
In the 1990s the monarchy became politicised with the help of the new Labor Prime Minister, Paul
Keating, who was a leading proponent of republicanism. The partisan divide on the issue broke
down. Keating took particular preoccupation on the monarchy-republic issue. His efforts to pollicise
saw him speaking on the monarchy on 17 occasions from 1992 to 1995 in the House of
Representatives – a topic of discussion which has not been brought up in the chamber since. A
cluster of discussions occurred in parliament shortly following the British tabloids publishing Sarah
Ferguson in a lewd act and her public separation with the Duke of York. Keating sensationalised the
monarchy.14 The overt domestic politicisation of the issue split voters aligned to both major parties
(McAllister 2002). Comparison of opinion in New Zealand to Australia finds prolonged debate to
have contributed to Aust alia s o e epu li a opi io s Kull a
.
Voters, according to McAllister (2002), preferred a republic on the condition citizens were to elect
the president. Voters sought an elected president to have their own sovereignty to act in conflict
with parliament (Wellings 2003); the political class was not willing to give up parliamentary
supremacy. The added combative element desired by voters requires the imposition of a complex
s ste of he k a d ala es th ough a popula l ele ted p esident holding parliament to account.
Such a constitutional change would present major legal and electoral challenges; the latter due to
the low success rate of referenda in Australia (see Legislative Studies 1992). Voters demanded more
than a nip-tuck to the monarchy but instead reform of how Australia governs itself.15 Sinclair
Davidson, Tim Fry and Kelly Jarvis (2006) attribute the efe e du s loss to voters taking on a lossminimisation strategy aiming to reduce their political risk instead of employing value-maximisation
logic. Gi e that ote s ould ot di e sif , o hedge thei politi al isks, the a e o e likel to ote
No i the fa e of u e tai t
: 863). Keating may have successfully contributed to making the
monarchy unpopular but voters decided Australian Westminster democracy was better with a
Queen than without one.
Keati g as ot the o l p i e i iste to atte pt to a ipulate the ele to ate s opi io to a ds
the monarchy. Less overt than Keating, Howard subtly encouraged cultural change (Gulmanelli 2014;
Johnson 2007) with the use of populism (Snow and Moffitt 2012; Wear 2008). The Howard
government placed greater emphasis on Anglo-Celtic values as part of its Australian nationalism
narrative as Johnson (2007) highlights. The monarchy must be included in any reasonable
i te p etatio of Joh so s assess e t of Ho a d s p o otio of traditional values . Monarchy has
e o e a o e e t al pa t of the state s o st u tio of ide tit fo its itize s follo i g the
14
One occasion typifies this sort of activity, in November 1994 Keating detailed the expenses of royal visits
with the aid of a Dorothy Dixor (Hansard 1994).
15
Pe haps it is o th o side i g if the easu e fo etai the o a h o e o e a epu li
as fo so e
respondents interpreted as a proxy for Westminster democracy and congressional government.
19 | P a g e
referendum. There are increased visits of Royal Family members – at the invitation of the various
governments of the day. The efficient part of state had clear involvements in agitating the demurring
and improvement of public opinion towards the monarchy.
Dignified
The dignified explanation for the change in support for the monarchy in Australia centres on the
Aust alia pu li s espo se to the
s royal scandals and the coming of age of the new Royals. In
the 1992 annus horribilis, Prince Charles and Princess Diana separate, the Princess Royal divorced,
and the Duke of Yo k s est a ged ife featu ed o the ta loids topless ha i g he toes su ked a
fi a ial ad ise a o g othe s a dals Da ies
. At this poi t Aust alia s high suppo t fo the
monarchy ebbed (see Figure 2). Commercial polling spiked from 36 per cent republican support in
1991 to 57 per cent in 1992 (Bean 1993: 196). Some have challenged, at least in Britain, whether this
had any impact. Billig (2002: x) asserts that it ould e o g [...] to ha t the de li e i
o a h s
fortunes purely in terms of the behaviour, or misbehaviour, of the Windsors. Royal fortunes fade at
the moment the dignified part of state appears undignified.
These events were taken advantage of by proponents of the republic, such as Keating. Dia a s death
saw national mourning in Britain and Aust alia fo the people s p i ess (Abrams 1997). However
some (Duruz and Johnson 1999) argued Australian media treated Diana in death more as a media
icon rather than an icon of royalty. A study of Australian Anglo-Celtic women (Black and Smith 1999)
found Anglo-Celtic women it difficult to identify with Diana in some respects such as the wealth
difference; so ethi g efle ted i fe ale t ade u io ists opi io Ta le . The e is e idence to
suggest that among Anglo-Celti o e thei identification included her physical and character
attributes, the mothering role and the universal tragedy of death Bla k a d S ith
. Wo e
related to Diana as a mother within the royal family. While the Durz and Johnson (1999) media
ethnography suggests the media represented Diana as a media icon, the reading of the media was
that of royalty (Black and Smith 1999: 271-72). Black and Smith found age was not a barrier to
relating to Diana, something which is reflected in the results (Table 6). Australians were critical of
the ‘o al Fa il s t eat e t of Dia a a d ju taposed Dia a s hu a , e otio al a d lo i g
othe i g to a i passi e, old a d u e otio al ‘o al Fa il Bla k a d S ith
: 71). The
focus shifted from Prince Charles once Prince William grew up. As a father, William, publically shows
affection as his mother did – unlike his grandmother which Anglo-Celtic women observed (Black and
Smith 1999). With Prince William there is no public point of comparison between cold and warm
royal characters.
The o i g of age of P i es Willia a d Ha has kept o alt i the pu li s atte tio . The p i es
ventured into Iraqi and Afghanistan theatres and pictures appeared on Australian television screens,
William courting, the pomp of his marriage to the Duchess of Cambridge and the hype surrounding
the birth of Prince George. Improvement to public opinion occurred as the natural life cycle of each
generation were shown the splendour of the dignified part of state in 2011. This undoubtedly had an
effect with the highest support for the monarchy in commercial polling data since 1988 being
egiste ed si eeks afte P i e Willia s a iage see Figu es a d .16 There were 58 per cent
The e a e haza ds usi g su h data as Ja k a
sho s o
e ial i house effe ts a e su sta tial a d
there is little reliability with the low sample sizes used by commercial pollsters producing large confidence
intervals. Goot (2000: 46) points out these polls are commissioned for news content rather than any social-
16
20 | P a g e
who supported the monarchy while only 35 per cent supported a republic. This is a similar level to
when Prince Charles and Princess wedded in 1981. It was publically confirmed that Catherine
Middleton was dating the Prince in 2006 since then, in commercial polling at least, there has been
improving support for the monarchy as an institution. Since 2008 the presence of these new royals
appears to have maintained high support for the monarchy.17
I t igui gl the e is a effe t of o e s edu atio le els ut ot e hile the monarchy is
popular and a low salient issue. Billig (2002: 177) finds a distinction in the household gender division
of regarding interest towards monarchy. It is probable that the effects of education at different
levels of saliency (Table 6) are a product of educated women actively considering the issue of
monarchy more than men giving education more of an opportunity to effect public opinion.
Banal Royals
The coming of age of the new royals saw a return of good fortune for the support of the monarchy.
Those who embraced or re-embraced the monarchy probably did as a form of banal nationalism.
Billig s
a ou t of atio alis as a so ial ps hologi al phe o e o is dependent upon
symbolism and the nation-state (Day and Thompson 2004: 98). Symbols such as flags and armed
service uniforms propagate the polity. Monarchy has a subtle presence in Australia but there remain
symbols and cultural practices legitimising the monarchy. A week does not go by without the media
mentioning the Royal Family and symbolism in the form of currency carry Queen Elizabeth II and
u ifo s a St. Ed a d s C o . These p o ide a a al e i de to the legiti a of the
monarchy – Banal Royalty. These symbols in thei u i uit the fo
e e da a o stitutio of
thei a a e ess Da and Thompson 2004:
. As the flag epeatedl e i ds people of he e
the a e, a d to hat the elo g u e
has the sa e effe t o the olle ti e i agi i g of the
18
nation. Co ti ual e i de s of o a h s p ese e self-legitimises the Crown as an institution.
The legitimisation of this so ial o de is a p odu t of appl i g to the o je ti e st u tu es of the
social world structures of perception and appreciation that have emerged from these objective
structures and tend to see the world as self-evident (Bourdieu 1990: 135). O e ge e atio s so ial
constructed social relationship to monarchy becomes socially inherited and the given for successive
generations. Australians continue cultural practices such as observing the public spectacles of
weddings in Westminster Cathedral and the bonds between each generation and the monarchy are
set. I suggest the g adual odest i p o ed M Alliste
:
o se ed follo i g the
referendum was the symbols of banal nationalism working to epai the C o s legiti a as the
republic declined in salience. From 1998 to 2007 the AES records an improvement of 6 per cent in
support for the monarchy. Then a spike from 40 per cent support in 2007 to 47 per cent in 2013
occurs while the Australian public witness the once in a generation courting of an heir and the pomp
s ie tifi alue st essi g the p ess pla s up diffe e es hi h a e othe ise i sig ifi a t e ause it has to. A
ritual which pollsters do is poll on the issue infrequently: either annually or for sporadic events such as
referendum, death, weddings or royal visitations. The data can be described as patchy and best cannot be
pooled with methods similar to the study by Jackman (2005).
17
The last data point in Figures 2 and 3 is a Newspoll from June 2014 eleven weeks after Tony Abbott
reintroduced Knights and Dames in the Order of Australia. This suggests that while the dignified part of state
has made inroads in public opinion, the efficient part of state could have marred public opinion towards the
monarchy.
18
For that matter, the Union Flag affixed in the corner of the Australian national flag would have an effect on
the collective imagining of Australia in relation to the United Kingdom.
21 | P a g e
of o a h ; a so t of sti ula t illia t to the e e; that hi h is see
(Bagehot 2009: 9). This is potentially a period effect.
i idl fo a
o e t
For Billig (1995: 69) natio al ide tit is o e tha a i e ps hologi al state o a i di idual self
defi itio : it is a fo of life that is dail li ed. The usage of national symbols and sporadic Royal
Family media provides the basis for legitimising the ancient institution. This is the probable source of
the gradual improvement in public sentiments towards the monarchy in the recent past. Monarchy
is a deep-seated part of the Australian national identity. In national cultural events, such as royal
marriages in Britain, Australians wish to keep their monarchy more. For many Australians
o a his is a fo of life that is dail li ed a d u o s iousl asso iated to the atio -state.
Ethnic Nationalism
Here I shall briefly discuss the nature of Australian nationalism and the monarchy and an avenue of
inquiry worth exploring. Little scholarship has been conducted into how Royalty features in
Australian nationalism; thought this article demonstrates the relationship between ethnic
nationalism and public opinion on the monarchy to be stable and conversely civic nationalism and
public opinion to be unstable (Tables 4 and 5). There is sig ifi a t s hola ship [a]gai st pe siste t
trends in Australian historiography, [which] argue that Britishness was neither inimical nor incidental
to Aust alia atio alis
M G ego
: 494). Russell McGregor (2006: 494) argues that
Australian nationalism is disti ti el Aust alia hile si ulta eousl a d fe e tl B itish: a
composite nationalism. M G ego
: 503) expands:
The Australian head of state was the British monarch, and many of the symbols of civic
nationhood – anthem, flag, honours, titles – remained wholly or substantially British long
after federation. Australians of the day were not only aware of the Britishness of their civic
institutions, they rejoiced in the fact and regarded their freedom and democracy as part of
their ethnic inheritance as Britons.
While no longer do Britain and Australia share an anthem there is an ethnic and civic nationalism in
Australia that has o i ed i
utuall suppo ti e a s M G ego 006: 503-4) something
supported by recent scholarship (Fozdar and Spittles 2010; 2014). The White Australian policy which
lasted until 1966 and demographic population momentum has ensured this composite nationalism
has continued. Howard managed to define multiculturalism, not as the literal plurality of ethnic
identities co-e isti g ithi a i i atio alis , ut ot a etu to assi ilatio so much, but
somewhere in between (Megalogenis 2006: 2). Howard refra ed ulti ultu alis i a a that it
as a epta le ithi a A glosphe ist ultu al fa e o k, hi h fo esees assi ilatio Gul a elli
2014: 592-93) to accommodate the ethnic nationalism element described by McGregor.
Furthermore there was a tone whi h tapped i to Aust alia eth i atio alis i Ho a d s
o st u tio of a othe , o -Aust alia s agai st o di a Aust alia s , ithi his use of populis
and wedge politics (Snow and Mottiff 2012: 285). The results show stable public opinion for ethnic
atio alists o the o a h ho fit Ho a d s o di a Aust alia o st u tio . The e is e ide e
of a convergence of civic nationalism with ethnic nationalism on the issue. Australian civic
atio alis s se i-cultural assimilation is accommodated on ethnic nationalist terms. This could in
some part explain the recent weakening of migrant hostilities towards the monarchy (Table 2).
Ho a d s ole i
a ipulati g atio al ide tit a d alues Joh so
ith the o posite
22 | P a g e
nationalism (McGregor 2006) provides one potential explanation for improving fortunes for the
monarchy.
The monarchy s resilience as an institution beyond the 1999 referendum (particularly the rapid rise
in support from from 2007 to 2013) posits a predicament of explaining the phenomenon of
improved public opinion if sociologists, historians, social psychologists and political scientists reject
the banal nationalism, o o e a u atel a al o alt thesis. Constant news about royalty
p o ides the i ha ita ts of the U ited Ki gdo , and Australia, a al e i de s of atio hood, fo
it informs them regularly about the family which symbolically represents that nationhood (Billig:
1995; 2002: xii). The resurgence in popularity in Australia is all the more puzzling question of public
opinion if we are to reject that the Queen embodies some form of Australianness as some scholars
have (Warhurst 1993) and ignore evidence for Anglo-Celtic identification with royalty (Black and
Smith 1999), and that there is an ethnic nationalist component to Australian nationalism which
reinforces public opinion on the monarchy.
Conclusions
Australian public opinion on the monarchy has been fluid in recent years. There are cohort effects
associated with socialisation, the types of nationalism affect opinion and that relationship is not
always stable. Gender differences on the issue a e sta k ho e e o siste t ith the Billig s
:
175o e a d eddi gs su
atio of the diffe e es. Public opinion towards the monarchy
has been improving over the last fifteen years. Australians were reluctant to do away with the
monarchy in 1999 due to the alternative presented however Australians are themselves more loyal
to the Crown. This is in contrast to expectations of continual erosion of support for the ancient
institution because of the effects of education and religion. Australia has become better educated
and more secular over time but in spite of the expectations of some (Bean 1993: 204) that
ge e atio al epla e e t [...] is the o ious solutio to the o a h p o le
Billig
: -12;
Warhurst 1993) fortunes have improved with a new generation with relatively high support. Public
opinion is at a crossroads at a time distant enough from the referendum that the Opposition Leader,
Bill Shorten attempted to revive the issue on Australia Day when Tony Abbott gave Prince Phillip a
knighthood to the chagrin of the public and his backbench. It remains to be seen if the improvement
in public opinion is merely the effect of Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George arriving on the
scene but the topic remains fertile for academic discussion on public opinion and its consequences.
References
A a s, D.
. U e tai t a d so ial ps hologi al espo ses The Psychologist 10(11):
500-01.
AES [Australian Election Study]. 1993-2013. McAllister, I. et al. Canberra: Australian Data
Archive, The Australian National University.
ANPA [Australian National Political Attitudes survey]. 1981. Aitkin, D. Canberra: Australian
Data Archive, The Australian National University.
AuSSA [Australian Survey of Social Attitudes]. 2013. Released 2014-07-07. Version 1. URL:
<http://hdl.handle.net/TEST/10023 UNF:5:8azhsY+MmGkqwrkPUFcmvQ==>
Bagehot, W. [1867] 2009. The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bea , C.
. Pu li attitudes o the o a h ‐ epu li issue . Australian Journal of
Political Science. 28(4): 190-206.
Billig, M. [1992] 2002. Talking about the Royal Family. London: Routledge.
23 | P a g e
Billig, M. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Black, E. and Smith, P.
. P i ess Dia a's ea i gs fo o e : esults of a fo us g oup
stud . Journal of Sociology 35: 263-278.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. In Other Words. Cambridge: Polity.
Commonwealth Parliament of Australia [Hansard]. 1994. Senate Parliamentary Debates,
official Hansard, 17 November, column 3835.
Davidson, S., Fry, T.R.L. and Jarvis, K. 2006. Di e t de o a i Aust alia: Vote eha iou
i the hoi e et ee o stitutio al o a h a d a epu li . European Journal of Political
Economy 22: 862-873.
Da ies, C.
. Ho the ‘o al Fa il ou ed a k f o its a us ho i ilis . The
Guardian. 24 May. URL: <www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/royal-family-bouncedback-annus-horribilis>. Consulted 4 November 2014.
Day, G. and Thompson, A. 2004. Theorizing Nationalism. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.
Dayan, D. and Katz, E. 1985. Electronic Ceremonies: Television Performs a Royal Wedding. In
Blonsky, M. ed. On Signs. Oxford: Blackwell.
De is, J. a d We ste , C.
. Child e s i ages of the P eside t, i
a d
.
American Politics Quarterly. 3: 386-405.
Duruz, J. and Johnson, C.
. Mou i g at a dista e: Aust alia s a d the death of a
B itish p i ess . I Kea , A. a d Stienburg D. Eds. Mourning Diana: nation, culture and the
performance of grief. London: Rutledge.
E a s, J.
. Wo e a d Politi s: a ‘e-app aisal . Political Studies 28: 210-21.
Fozdar, F. and Spittles, D. 2010. Patriotic vs. proceduralist citizenship: Australian
representations . Nations and Nationalism 16: 127–147.
Fozdar, F. and Spittles, D.
. Of cows and men: Nationalism and Australian cow making .
Australian Journal of Anthropology 25: 73-90.
Goot, M. 1994. Co ti ge t I e ita ilit : ‘efle tio s o the P og osis fo ‘epu li a is . I
Winterton, G. ed. We, The People. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Goot, M.
. The Pe fo a e of the Polls. I Ho a d s Age da, eds. Simms, M. and
Warhurst, J. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press: 37-47.
Gulmanelli, S. 2014. Joh Ho a d a d the A glosphe ist eshape i g of Aust alia .
Australian Journal of Political Science 49: 581-595.
Jackman, S.
. Pooling the polls over an election campaign . Australian Journal of
Political Science. 40: 499-517.
Je i gs, M.K. a d )ha g, N.
. Ge e atio s, politi al status, a d olle ti e e o ies i
the Chi ese ou t side . Journal of Politics. 67: 1164-89.
Joh so , C.
. Ho a d s alues a d Aust alia Ide tit . Australian Journal of Political
Science. 42(2): 195-210.
Kelley, J., Evans, M., Mearns, M., and Headey, B. 1999. Republic, Parliament and the People:
20 Years of Survey Evidence. Australian Social Monitor. 2(5): 104-113.
Kull a , C.
. Attitudes to a ds the Mo a h i Aust alia a d Ne )eala d
Co pa ed . Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 46(4): 442-63.
Legislative Studies.
. De ati g the Questio of ‘epu li a is fo Aust alia: a
S posiu .
: 21-45.
McAllister, I. 1992. Political Behaviour: Citizens, Parties and Elites in Australia. Melbourne:
Longman Cheshire.
M Alliste , I.
. Ele tio s Without Cues: The
Aust alia ‘epu li ‘efe e du
Australian Journal of Political Science. 36: 247-269.
McAllister, I. 2011. The Australian Voter. Sydney: UNSW Press.
McAllister, I. and Cameron, S. 2014. Trends in Australian Political Opinion: Results from the
Australian Election Study, 1987-2013. School of Politics and International Relations, College
of Arts and Social Sciences. Canberra: Australian National University.
24 | P a g e
McGregor, R. 2006. The necessity of Britishness: ethno-cultural roots of Australian
nationalism . Nations and Nationalism 12(3): 493-511.
Megalogenis, G. 2006. PM hits at Jihad Musli s . Australian 20 February.
NSSS [National social science survey integrated data, 1984-1988] Kelley, J., et al. 1990.
Canberra: Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University.
NSSS. [National social science survey 1990 election panel] Kelley, J., et al. 1992. Canberra:
Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University.
Özkirimli, U. 2005. Contemporary Debates on Nationalism: A Critical Engagement.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pa p o th, N.
. The Su essio to the C o A t
: Mode isi g the Mo a h .
Modern Law Review 76(6): 1070-93.
Sapi o, V.
. Politi al So ializatio Du i g Adulthood: Cla if i g the politi al ti e of ou
li es . Research in Micropolitics. 4:197-223.
Sears, D.O. and Brow ., C.
. Childhood a d Adult Politi al De elop e t I Hudd , L.,
D.O. Sears and Levy, J.S. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. 2nd Ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sears, D.O. and Valentino, N.A. 1997. Politics matters: political events as catalysts for
p eadult so ializatio . American Political Science Review. 91: 45-65.
S hu a , H., Aki a a, H. a d K äupe , B.
. Colle ti e e o ies of Ge a s a d
Japanese about the past half- e tu . Memory. 6: 427-54.
Schuman, H. and Rogers, W.
. Coho ts, h o olog , a d olle ti e e o ies . Public
Opinion Quarterly. 68: 217-54.
S o , D. a d Moffitt, B.
. Straddling the divide: mainstream populism and
conservatism in Howard's Australia and Harper's Canada . Commonwealth & Comparative
Politics. 50: 271-292.
Torney-Pu ta, J.
. Adoles e es politi al so ializatio i ha gi g o te ts . Political
Psychology, 25: 465-78.
Wa hu st, J.
. Nationalism and republicanism in Australia: The evolution of institutions,
citizenship and symbols . Australian Journal of Political Science 28(4): 100-20.
Wea , ‘.
. Pe a e t Populis : The Ho a d Go e
e t
. Australian
Journal of Political Science. 43: 617-634.
Welli gs, B.
. B itish ess a d the Failu e of Aust alia ‘epu li a is . Studies in
Ethnicity and Nationalism. 3(2): 35-50.
25 | P a g e
Appendix 1: Factor Loadings for Nationalism scalesa
1996
Ethni
Civi
c
c
To be Truly Australian: born in Australia
.845
.024
.160
2001
Ethnic
Civic
.849
-.014
.787
.816
.155
To be Truly Australian: live in Australia most of
life
.601
.156
.608
.128
To be Truly Australian: be Christian
.423
.492
.498
.517
To be Truly Australian: speak English
.336
.550
.411
.557
To be Truly Australian: Australia citizenship
.089
.686
.063
.759
To be Truly Australian: feel Australian
-.066
.762
-.006
.800
To be Truly Australian: respect Australian laws
C o a h s alpha
.678
.728
(n)
(1693)
(1896)
Source: Australian Election Study, 1996 & 2001; Australia Survey of Social Attitudes, 2013
2013
Ethnic
Civic
.865
.074
.871
.080
.561
.466
.417
.325
-.222
.253
.540
.597
.578
.826
.750
(1465)
a
Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation used. First three eigenvalues for 1996, 2001 and 2013
respectively are 2.45, 1.19 & .85; 2.74, 1.26 & .77 and 2.89, 1.21, & .79.
26 | P a g e