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

[Polly]

Originally Posted by WindsorIII

I don't think its the law that they have to be Austrailian but more of a tradition the current Prime Minister would like to go back too. I think the tradition was altered for the Queen and for Charles, and that he would like to see it go back to the way it always was before them. This is the take I got on it from what I have read.

The current PM does not wish to return to the days of a non-Australian PM. The 'tradition' of having a British GG wasn't altered for anyone, Queen or Charles. It was dropped because most Australians wanted an Australian Governor General, no matter what their personal politics might be.

Charles' desire to be GG was personally expressed and seriously discussed but found inappropriate. I, too, would find William's appointment as Governor General entirely inappropriate. Simply, he's not Australian.

Opposition Leader Rudd has said that there's a place for British royals, and it's Britain. He noted that Australia's better at exporting royals (CP Mary).

Incidentally, Lord Casey, a former GG, was an Australian, not English. Since 1965 all GGs have been Australian, with two earlier others, Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931-36) and William McKell (1947-1953) being Australian. The 'tradition' of an Australian GG is now well and truly entrenched and despite my attitude to the royals in other areas, I fully endorse it.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Polly

The current PM does not wish to return to the days of a non-Australian PM. The 'tradition' of having a British GG wasn't altered for anyone, Queen or Charles. It was dropped because most Australians wanted an Australian Governor General, no matter what their personal politics might be.

Charles' desire to be GG was personally expressed and seriously discussed but found inappropriate. I, too, would find William's appointment as Governor General entirely inappropriate. Simply, he's not Australian.

Opposition Leader Rudd has said that there's a place for British royals, and it's Britain. He noted that Australia's better at exporting royals (CP Mary).

Incidentally, Lord Casey, a former GG, was an Australian, not English. Since 1965 all GGs have been Australian, with two earlier others, Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931-36) and William McKell (1947-1953) being Australian. The 'tradition' of an Australian GG is now well and truly entrenched and despite my attitude to the royals in other areas, I fully endorse it.

OOps!!

I originally was going to say mid-60s and then, for some reason, thought that Lord Casey was British - strange seeing as I met him and my teacher, at the time, stressed that we should be proud to be meeting him as he was an Australian and not an 'import' (her words).

Funny how you forget things like that - I also meet Hasluck through school, which is why I suspect I got confused because I knew he was definitely Aussie born.

As an Aussie, and a proud one of some 7 generations standing, I would never want a non-Aussie in the position of GG (even if I am a monarchist).

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by wbenson

The Queen doesn't choose the GG, though, and rarely sees the GG once they're in place. The only times the GG and Queen meet are before taking office and whenever one visits where the other is at.

Oh I thought she appointed GG's. It's really a ceremonial position, isn't it?
I thought the whole purpose of the GG's was so the Head of State would have a "representative" in the Commonwealth member countries?

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Oh I thought she appointed GG's. It's really a ceremonial position, isn't it?
I thought the whole purpose of the GG's was so the Head of State would have a "representative" in the Commonwealth member countries?

The Queen does 'appoint' the GG. She doesn't choose them.

The GG carries out ALL the duties of the Queen within her realm of Australia. That is what is meant by 'represents the monarch'. He/She meets regularly with the PM, dissolves parliament, issues the writs for the election and signs the writs after the election, signs ALL legislation (called the Royal Assent) etc.

In that regard it is as ceremonial a position as that of the Queen herself. On ceremonial occasions where a member of the British Royal Family is present, excluding the Queen, the GG takes precedence over said royal as the GG is there officially for the Queen e.g. at the Bicenntennial celebrations in 1988 the then GG took precedence at those ceremonies over the Prince and Princess of Wales as he was representing the Queen in Australia while they were visiting. Of course if the Queen is herself present then she takes precedence with the GG immediately after her and before everyone else.

Actually the GG of Australia has more power than the Queen has in Britian because the Queen doesn't have the reserve powers that the GG has.


Most GGs have made one official visit to Britain during their term in office to meet with the Queen but this is not mandated anywhere. They do have phones etc and can discuss matters if necessary. One of the many complaints about the actions of both Sir Philip Game, in 1932 (he dismissed the elected government of NSW and the Premier Jack Lang), and Sir John Kerr, who dismissed the elected government of Australia and the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, was that neither representative of the monarch actually got advice from the monarch in person. They did seek constitutional advice from local constitutional experts about their actions however.

I don't wish to have a debate about the legalities of either dismissal. I am just stating the accepted facts in these matters to enlighten some of our os board members about the roles and powers of the GG in Australia. I don't know, for instance, whether the GG in other realms has the same powers.

[leanne]

In 1945 to 1947 Prince William's Great-great Uncle Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Governor-General of Australia, so Australia has been represented by Royalty previously.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by leanne

In 1945 to 1947 Prince William's Great-great Uncle Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Governor-General of Australia, so Australia has been represented by Royalty previously.

But would we want to be represented by a British royal now? What was appropriate 60 years ago isn't necessarily the case now.


Australia has moved on from that situation and for the last 40 years has only had and Aussie as the GG, quite rightly IMHO.

As much as I am a monarchist I wouldn't want any member of the royal family as GG. I want an Aussie in that position.

Now, if the suggestion was that Harry (or some other member of the family - maybe one of the girls) was to become our monarch directly and live here, raise their family here, and pass the throne to Aussie born children) then I would have to think again!!!

Having raised that issue I am going to have to leave the board for about 5 days and visit my father whose computer is so old and slow it takes about 10 minutes for this site to load so I rarely bother.

[Elspeth]

What is it with these Windsor boys? They seem to think that being G-G of Australia is some sort of work experience opportunity for them while they wait for a real job.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the Windsor boys. This is yet another example of Tina Brown apparently being privy to secret conversations by members of the royal family. The biography in question would appear to be the Diana Chronicles, not a biography of William, and the Diana threads are already littered with verbatim accounts of secret conversations and secret desires. She must have managed to get thought-tranferring bugs implanted in the brains of half the royals, the way these quotes from her book are reading.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Actually the GG of Australia has more power than the Queen has in Britian because the Queen doesn't have the reserve powers that the GG has.

I disagree for two reasons:

1) The reserve powers of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia are outlined in the written Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, whereas the reserve powers of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom are loosely defined in an unwritten constitution, or in other words, in common law.

2) The powers exercisable by the Governor-General and Sovereign are influenced by constitutional convention, but are not formally restricted to not ever being exercised.
Just because the Sovereign or Governor-General doesn't exercise the powers their positions allow them to draw on, doesn't mean they are powerless.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

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 theory could be answered with the following point. As the Constitution makes specific mention of the United Kingdom, that state would no longer exist were it to hypothetically, become a republic. No longer being a Kingdom/monarchy would certainly require formal change of the Australian Constitution as the state of the United Kingdom had been abolished.

Quite simply, there could be no President of a Kingdom, without there also being a monarch.

[Madame Royale]

ninemsn

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says another referendum on whether Australia should become a republic will be held if Labor wins office.

Republic referendum is on cards: Rudd

[attaininggrace]

Hello everyone,

I've studied Law and I fail to understand why so many people are Republicans when we are a completely independent country legally. Many of them have an Irish background or they are immigrants and I understand their views to some extent but I don't understand people with a British background wanting Australia to be a republic.

Many people dislike the idea of Prince Charles being King and Camilla becoming Queen but if they're trying to be loyal to the memory of Princess Diana I think that they are very sadly mistaken. I am absolutely sure that she would have wanted Prince William to be King!

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace

Lisa-Anne Sanderson Writer and Editor - Writing and editing by experienced freelancer
bookaddiction

[attaininggrace]

I think that PW really doesn't want to be G-G at all but it's been jumped at by the Republican press. I am an Australian and I would be perfectly happy to have him as G-G myself, but I can see that this would ruin the argument (with which I certainly agree) that our G-G is our Head of State and is an Australian.

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace

[attaininggrace]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

1
I think that you and I agree on the problems of our education system in this area which is good to see in an obviously young person. Unfortunately I realise that what is right is not necessarily the way my fellow teachers teach. I too have teachers who refer to the Queen as a Pommy and the words used for the G-G have been pretty awful - especially from some of the student teachers I have had recently - but what can you expect when they are being taught that Gallipoli was a great victory for Australia!!!!

Hello Chrissy,

I should have put all these replies into one post, I'm sorry.

This surely can't be literally true! How could they possibly be taught that Gallipoli is a great victory? What are the textbooks that they are using?

Is this something to do with what they are learning about Anzac Day? Don't their teachers know their history?

I know that I was quite shocked when I talked about Captain Cook and said that he discovered Australia and my nephew said that I meant that Australia was 'invaded'. That isn't as bad as saying that Gallipoli was a victory, however!

Best Regards,
Lisa
Lisa-Anne Sanderson Writer and Editor - Writing and editing by experienced freelancer
bookaddiction

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by attaininggrace

Hello Chrissy,

I should have put all these replies into one post, I'm sorry.

This surely can't be literally true! How could they possibly be taught that Gallipoli is a great victory? What are the textbooks that they are using?

Is this something to do with what they are learning about Anzac Day? Don't their teachers know their history?

I know that I was quite shocked when I talked about Captain Cook and said that he discovered Australia and my nephew said that I meant that Australia was 'invaded'. That isn't as bad as saying that Gallipoli was a victory, however!

Best Regards,
Lisa
Lisa-Anne Sanderson Writer and Editor - Writing and editing by experienced freelancer
bookaddiction

It is a logical assumption considering that all that is compulsorily taught in NSW schools is that Australians fought at Gallipoli.

Then they are taught that we were on the winning side of the war.

The majority of students don't learn anything about Australians fighting in any other theatre of war in World War One or about fighting after 1915 so they assume that as we were on the winning side and aren't being taught about later campaigns then they assume that Gallipoli was a victory. The current textbooks used in NSW for the compulsory course doesn't mention anything about this.

I have just had another student teacher from Sydney university (the fourth in three years) who has told me the same thing. These are going to go out there and then teach this to young Australians.

Frankly I would like to make the compulsory course include all of World War One and World War Two (the compulsory course only has to study ONE campaign involving Australians in WWII so must students learn nothing about Aussies fighting against the Germans or in fact fighting anywhere except Kokada - makes it easy to teach kids that Britain 'deserted' us at Singapore as they don't get taught anything about the situation facing Britain in 1941 - 42.

I really fear for the future history knowledge of young Australians - it is so missing stuff but is so skewed as well (that is in states where it is taught at all!!).

[attaininggrace]

Hello Chrissy,

It's all very shocking. I remember that there was an argument not very long ago that history should be taught in chronological order - at least as much as possible! I was astonished that there was a great outcry about this because I agreed.

I studied history at school thirty years ago and I am not sure whether it was much better then. It was better but when I look back I have learned most of my knowledge of history from university and reading. The trouble was the curriculum. It was so strange and disjointed. One day we'd be learning about the French Revolution and the next day we would learn about the causes of the First World War.

I absolutely agree with you that students should do a compulsory course covering both wars. The whole way that history is taught is just crazy. If Labor gets in this will probably be even worse, although this is not the place for politics - this is my personal opinion.

Best Regards,
Lisa

[chloephoto]

Hello to you all.
I'm a photographer from London doing a piece on the relationship between British royalty and the Australian people. I'm on my way out to Sydney in December and would like to find Royal supporters and enthusiasts to involve in the project. Any contacts to people, societies or associations in Australia would be greatly appreciated, so please help!
Thank you thank you
Chloe

{e-mail address removed - Elspeth}