The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor General, etc...

[Margrethe II]

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

Do people still continue to Bow and Curtsy to Their Excellencies The Governor General and The Vice Regal Consort, I know that in Canada the tradition was done away with in the 1960's, but on an Australian Government website linked below they still recommend bowing and curtsying.

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/CA256D8000...SOFADDRESS.doc

Not really...I think a handshake is pretty much the norm in nowadays. Of course, there are some who continue to execute such formailities but the over all public are less inclined to curtsy or bow.

"MII"

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Australian

I see no reason why a pledge of loyalty should be made to the British royal family these days and i would fully support a pledge to Australia and its people instead of to a foreign country. However- the timing is a bit disrespectful to HM

Australian, as you are well aware, the oath of allegiance is made to Her Majesty The Queen, and her heirs and successors as Constitutional Monarchy of the Commonwealth of Australia, not 'the British royal family'. Some people in Australia are so willing to forget that members of parliament and legislative assemblies are all members of Her Majesty's Federal and State Governments, or loyal opposition. They through the unique combination of public and monarchical pleasure, and must be accountable to both.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

Australian, as you are well aware, the oath of allegiance is made to Her Majesty The Queen, and her heirs and successors as Constitutional Monarchy of the Commonwealth of Australia, not 'the British royal family'. Some people in Australia are so willing to forget that members of parliament and legislative assemblies are all members of Her Majesty's Federal and State Governments, or loyal opposition. They through the unique combination of public and monarchical pleasure, and must be accountable to both.

Von Schlesian, ok I mean the Queen and her heirs, doesnt really make much difference for me, Von Schlesian i think you have to tolerate the fact that there are some republicans in Australia.

[Margrethe II]

Originally Posted by Australian

OK now this is just my opinion but hopefully, it will happen in other Australian states.

It can happen in every other state but my beloved Victoria

"MII"

[Von Schlesian]

Our beloved Victoria Margrethe II! :)

[Margrethe II]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

Our beloved Victoria Margrethe II! :)

Of course, Von Schlesian :)

"MII"

[Skydragon]

No republic after Queen's reign: Abbott

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott does not believe Australia will become a republic after the reign of Queen Elizabeth ends.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060315/21/y8xj.html

Your job is safe, ma'am. Your son's, however …

AUSTRALIA will not become a republic while the Queen is on the throne but may make a change after that, John Howard predicted yesterday.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/your-j...2098528252.html

[ysbel]

Hmm, I thought about putting this in the Queen's Australian visit thread, but its really about the Queen's role in Australia and it looks pretty interesting.

from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4807952.stm

[HRH Kerry]

Reading the first article seemed like they were really undecided. However, the second seems as though they have made up their minds in what Australia has in store for the future King. Looks iffy to me.

[love_cc]

I woke up in the morning and saw Abott's words from the TV and I find Australia is likely to be a republican like what PM predicted. After all, Prince Charles is a foreigner to Australia and Australians now adore CP Mary of Denmark. I think Charles's visit to Australia may help the situation. He loves Australia but he did not come down the under often these years. Probably is he having a bad feeling because of the shooting in 1994?

[Avalon]

Don't leave it too late for republican debate, says Vanstone

The Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone says Australians need to work out the best model for a republic before Queen Elizabeth II leaves the throne.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060603/21/z864.html

[Skydragon]

Long live Charles:

FINANCE Minister Nick Minchin is warning republicans not to bank on change when Prince Charles becomes King, arguing Australians will easily accept him as the new monarch.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...5E2682,00.html

[Margrethe II]

Long live Charles:

FINANCE Minister Nick Minchin is warning republicans not to bank on change when Prince Charles becomes King, arguing Australians will easily accept him as the new monarch.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...5E2682,00.html

That remains to be seen...

Some points from the article...

A fervent monarchist...Would anyone really expect him to say anything else?

His relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles was now "consolidated and supported and popular"...What a small minority he is talking of! I can confidently say that most, and I mean most, Australian's couldn't give a hoot about either Charles or Camilla...even the monarchy for that matter.

Will my great country become a Republic straight after HM the Queen passes from this life to the next (long may that be)? No, but its definitly an
inevitable issue and change will happen. Impashioned monarchists like Mr Minchin like to fool themselves if they think otherwise.

I myself am a monarchist, yet I recognise the reality of Australia's pogressing situation.

"MII"

[Von Schlesian]

Margrethe II, other Australians;
I interpret what Senator Minchin means is that he doubts there'll be any public outcry, or withdrawl of the present support the monarchy enjoys in Australia, when HRH THe Prince of Wales succeeds as monarch.

And as for Vanstone, she's been given a few talkings-to in regard to her renegade republican stunts which she vainly believes will cover up her departmental foul-ups. It's absolutely none of her concern, other than a citizen, far too much money has been wasted on a question which was settled in 1999.

[Margrethe II]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

Margrethe II, other Australians;
I interpret what Senator Minchin means is that he doubts there'll be any public outcry, or withdrawl of the present support the monarchy enjoys in Australia, when HRH THe Prince of Wales succeeds as monarch.

And as for Vanstone, she's been given a few talkings-to in regard to her renegade republican stunts which she vainly believes will cover up her departmental foul-ups. It's absolutely none of her concern, other than a citizen, far too much money has been wasted on a question which was settled in 1999.

Any immediate change perhaps, but you know as well as I Von Schlesian that change is inevtable, it will happen.

Will Charles be our king some years into his reign? I dont think so. He doesn't have the support or respect base his mother does and the likeliness of our next Prime Minister being a republican is pretty much assured. The debate shall be brought up in the not to distant future, especially if Labour takes office at the next election (weirder thing's have happend.lol.)..then again, Costello may surprise (god dispise that man & may he never be our Prime Minister).

As for far too much money being wasted on the 1999 question...yes, it certianly was. The Australian public should have been given a fair option for their money, instead of being backed into a corner. Even I, a devoted monarchist can admit that.

The next referendum shall be victorious for the Australian Republican Party and the majority of Australian's nation wide.

"MII"

[Suonymona]

Lovely. Much like our federal congress' authority overriding the individual states' congresses.

Does that authority (of the Parliment of the United Kingdom) extend over the commonwealths or do their goverments have to pass the laws as well.
Meaning, could Australia's PM override an imperative from the UK PM because a law only applies in the UK?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Suonymona

Does that authority (of the Parliment of the United Kingdom) extend over the commonwealths or do their goverments have to pass the laws as well.
Meaning, could Australia's PM override an imperative from the UK PM because a law only applies in the UK?

Australia is a sovereign state, so an Act of the UK Parliament has no application here. If the UK Act related to the Monarchy then the Australian Parliament could pass complementary legislation, or not. Eg, Britain could be declared a republic but Australia would retain the Queen because our Constitution has the Sovereign as our Head of State.
No doubt that would be subject to some debate if it ever (shudder) happened.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Warren

Australia is a sovereign state, so an Act of the UK Parliament has no application here. If the UK Act related to the Monarchy then the Australian Parliament could pass complementary legislation, or not. Eg, Britain could be declared a republic but Australia would retain the Queen because our Constitution has the Sovereign as our Head of State.
No doubt that would be subject to some debate if it ever (shudder) happened.

There is, of course, the following clause at the very beginning of the Australian Constitution which would have to be dealt with in the circumstance of Britain becoming a republic before Australia (which I personally can't see happening):

2 Act to extend to the Queen’s successors

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to
Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom.

The interpretation I have had, from constitutional lawyers is that this actually could be interpreted that a President of the UK would actually become the President of Australia until such time as we have a referendum to change that fact. This is based on the fact that the clause isn't just 'Her Majesty's heirs' but also 'successors' and that said 'successors' could actually be a republican Head of State. NB The 'Her Majesty' in this clause was actually Queen Victoria, which is why the clause says 'to extend to the Queen's successors...

This is a legal opinion only and other lawyers and experts are just as likely to say the opposite of the interpretation I have given above. The interpretation was given to me over a dinner discussion with some colleagues of my father, two of them senior constitutional lawyers in Australia by the way. They did admit that not all experts in the field agree with their interpretation but that most did agree that if Britain became a republic then we could argue that we had also become a republic at the same time - the question is whether we have the same Head of State or whether, with that clause, we actually have the new British Head of State as ours.

This is hypothetical of course. I suspect that Australia will be a republic within the next 10 years, possibly less, but that Britian won't become one in the next 20 or so years.

[Suonymona]

Theoretically, could any of the Commonwealth's take a vote of "no faith" in King Charles and only recognize King William (presuming HM the Queen Elizabeth II was dead)?

I'm trying to flesh out the politics of all the various places the Queen rules and see what could really become a mess. Not quite the thread I should be questioning in, but then this is close to "British/UK/et al Politics".

[Skydragon]

I would think that if they don't want Charles after the death of his mother, why would they want to continue with a monarch at all?