HOW interesting it has been to observe events “down under” these last few days as King Charles makes his first visit to Australia since ascending to the throne. It is the first visit there by a reigning monarch for a decade and it is his biggest overseas trip since his cancer diagnosis and the start of treatment last February. It is also his first trip to one of the 14 realms where he remains head of state. A separate visit to New Zealand, which is also a realm, was originally scheduled but was later dropped on medical advice.

After Australia, where he arrived on October 18, the King will move on to the small sovereign country of Samoa in the Pacific for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from October 25 to 26. For the first time as head of the voluntary association of the Commonwealth, he will preside over a summit meeting of the government leaders from all its 56 member states which will be preceded by separate ministerial meetings. This summit takes place every two years.

The current trip is King Charles’ 17th visit overall to Australia. A notably significant one was as Prince of Wales in 1983 when Princess Diana accompanied him. Their visit was judged at the time to have been a resounding success.

The current trip is, by royal standards, relatively brief and pared down on account of his health as doubts have been expressed about whether, as a man of seventy-five and suffering from cancer, he could cope physically with the rigours of a full-blown tour. It has thus been limited to six days and he has suspended his cancer treatment in order to be there.

So he will only be visiting Sydney and Canberra and will be attending just a handful of events, and meeting political and community leaders – mainly, but not exclusively, in connection with the environment and the impact of climate change. In order to conserve his energy no evening engagements are included in the programme.

But the King is known to be a “workaholic” and, despite his cancer treatment, he is said to be keen to “get back to normal” with his traditionally heavy round of public engagements and series of overseas trips; and, encouragingly, royal aides have said recently on the record that “his health is on a positive trajectory”.

In common with other such royal visits, the Australian trip will be a mixture of diplomacy, culture and the environment and, most importantly, of people. For officials in London, a visit to Australia would normally be seen as traditionally safe territory. However, inevitably this trip has rekindled debate about the nation’s constitutional links to Britain.

At present, Australia is a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy so that the sovereign remains the nation’s head of state and acts in accordance with the Australian Constitution. It is also a federation of states. But the powers have been delegated to his representative, the Governor General, who is not involved in the day-to-day workings of the federal or state governments in Australia and acts upon the advice of the country’s ministers. The Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Australian prime minister.

The recurring controversy over republicanism has become more intense recently, and this royal visit could put the issue back in focus. That will prompt further questions about the future of the monarchy in Australia and whether the nation should now become a republic. Indeed, it has happened already with the King being heckled by a senator after addressing the Australian Parliament.

Monarchists expect that the visit will serve to increase Australians’ connection to the sovereign. In a referendum in 1999 a majority voted to keep The Queen as head of state. Recently, however, people are reported to be more divided on the issue, and it is now estimated that some 45 percent of Australians want the nation to remain a constitutional monarchy. There have been rumblings of republicanism across the local media and the country’s Republican Movement has been gaining strength. Its supporters reject the notion that someone from the other side of the world should be Australia’s head of state.

Meanwhile, inevitably the links between the two countries seem to have been weakening over the years, especially in relation to trade and the economy after Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973. Furthermore, the Australia Acts of 1986 ended the inclusion into Australian law of British Acts of Parliament and abolished all remaining constitutional provision for appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council in London.

Nonetheless, even if Australia became a republic, the presumption is that it would stay as a member of the Commonwealth – as Barbados did after it changed from being a realm to a republic in 2021.

Be all that as it may, the King has stated publicly and in writing that whether or not Australia moves to become a republic is a matter for the Australians themselves. This echoed the words of The Queen who wrote in 2000 that she had always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia was an issue for Australians.

Interestingly, this is also a matter for discussion in the Bahamas which remains a realm. As the Prince of Wales said in a speech during his visit to Nassau in 2022, ‘We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future. Relationships evolve. Friendship endures’.

UKRAINE AND MIDDLE EAST DOMINATE WORLD NEWS

Having written recently about how the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have been alternately top of the world media’s agenda, the events surrounding both during the last weeks seem to have taken centre stage. The emphasis on both has evidently reflected the significance of developments and the intense activity of Western diplomacy in handling the two of them.

The respected senior BBC journalist, Jeremy Bowen, is reported to have said that the past year of killing and broken assumptions and commitments in Gaza - and now in Lebanon as well – has taken the Middle East to the edge of a deeper, wider war.

US TV stations report the facts of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine but there appears to be relatively little informed analysis in linking events together and examining the likely consequences or listening to acknowledged experts offering an objective view.

To the outsider, too many of these stations are mainly concerned, through endless commercial breaks, with selling things to the viewer and forcing preconceived political notions on to them without any proper debate – and, as an example, MSNBC seem to be one of the worst.

As for the situation in the two war theatres, the almost daily gruesome reports of Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Beirut killing civilians in both places shows that hostilities seem to be intensifying. There has been news of Israel assassinating senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, missiles being fired consistently into Israel - including a drone attack from Lebanese territory on prime minister Netanyahu’s house - and, of course Iran’s bombing attack on Israel. It remains to be seen how the Israelis will respond to the latter but Netanyahu says he is undeterred by the attack on his own house in which no one was hurt. He also says Israel will go on fighting until the hostages are released and he can be sure that a severely weakened Hamas is not able to rearm and resume its terrorist activity.

Amidst all this, it is surely particularly significant that the US has expressed its deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is taking a tough stance in telling Israel that US military support and other aid will be cut off if it continues to obstruct humanitarian aid to Gaza and that this aid is not resumed properly without delay. In a joint letter from the secretary of state and the defense secretary, which has been leaked, they issued a stern warning about this and demanded that the north of Gaza should not be cut off while civilians were forcibly repatriated. I have also read that, following the atrocities of October 7, the Israelis announced “a complete siege” of the Gaza Strip, which meant no fuel or food would be allowed in, but that this was moderated under American pressure.

Meanwhile, in Europe there have been meetings at the highest level about Ukraine and the Middle East. President Zelensky has had further talks with EU leaders and President Biden made a brief visit to Berlin after having to pull out of an international trip earlier this month because of Hurricane Milton. The British and French leaders also attended the meetings in Berlin hosted by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Some commentators say this visit was more symbolic than anything else and will be seen as a farewell at the end of Biden’s presidency. But it was surely important that these leaders should show Western solidarity again in agreeing to ‘sustain our resolve’ in supporting Ukraine. According to reports, Biden also thanked Scholz for Germany’s cooperation in holding Iran accountable for its destabilizing policies, including providing missiles and drones to Russia for use against Ukraine.

Drawing attention to just some of these recent events demonstrates once again the harsh reality of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and Western efforts to deal with them -- and everyone surely realises that the longer term future depends, to a greater or lesser extent, on the outcome of the US elections on November 5.

Keeping up with the times

Not everyone will have welcomed the recent decision by the Wimbledon authorities to end 147 years of tradition with line judges being replaced by electronic line-calling. But, reportedly, the All England Club has said the “time is right” to do this as the oldest and most prestigious grand slam tennis tournament in the world takes another step in to the modern age.

This move reminds one, in particular, of what might be called the McEnroe era. The feisty Irish American John McEnroe, who was ranked as the top player in the world for four years during the 1980s, was notorious for remonstrating with – or rather shouting loudly at – umpires and line judges over calls that did not go his way. “You cannot be serious” was his usual expression of anger at the injustice of it all.

At Wimbledon, he seemed to get away with his aggressive behaviour without any real sanction. But eventually it caught up with all the players when the discipline and code of conduct at tennis tournaments on the professional circuit became, in the view of many, excessively strict.

All for the good of the game, one may say. But it is quite an irony that it was the uncontrolled extreme antics of one player that led to such a tightening up – more severe than it might have been - for everybody else.