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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Initially both Britain and Australia decided to campaign for both 2018 and 2022 and William actively supported Britain against Australia. Some will argue that due to his position with the FA that is as it should be but as the future King of Australia it is unacceptable to campaign for one of his grandmother's kingdoms against another.

After the world cup this year both Britian and Australia decided to concentrate on one year only and both were booted in the first round of voting (with Britain getting 2 votes and Australia only 1).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
...In a democracy the will of the people is sovereign - not any individual...
Click to expand...
I dont think so. The will of the People is indeed sovereign. But not in a monarchy...within the Crown is sovereignty, vested in the physical person of the Sovereign whom represents the Crown. The Queen is Sovereign...we are indeed subjects/servants of Her Majesty, the Queen of Australia, for she is our Monarch and Sovereign.

All power...executive, judicial and legislative stems from the Crown...represented in the Sovereign. De-jure is the Sovereign, the Monarch and De-facto is People delegated to Government/Parliament.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Australians haven't been subjects of any monarch for years. We are citizens of Australia and we live in a democracy where parliament is supreme not the monarch. Even in Britain, now, the people aren't described as subjects but as citizens.

The monarch gave up their political rights in 1660 to the parliament in return for the right of being the monarch (Charles II) - since then they have given up more and more power until they are now nothing more than a figurehead. Subsequent monarchs were fully aware of what happened to first Charles I in 1649 when he tried to overrule the sovreignty of parliament and the people and what happened in France when the King wouldn't give it away.

If the Queen can accept the sovreignty of the people then so should you.

If the British parliament voted to become a republic the Queen would have to sign the legislation and leave - she has no power and that is as it should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes exactly, Iluvbertie. I'm no republican, but I believe in the supremacy of parliament.


Iluvbertie said:
If the British parliament voted to become a republic the Queen would have to sign the legislation and leave - she has no power and that is as it should be.
Click to expand...
 
Tonight ABC1's Q&A: 'Is The Royal Romance Over' examined the relationship between Elizabeth II, the monarchy and Australia and it was really a very lovely portrayal of the broad affection which is held for Elizabeth by a good many Australian's, be them monarchist and republican alike.

It was however, quite forthright about the indapendance issue (amongst others) and a former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, was one of the interviewees and spoke to some length about the occasions in which he had spoken with the Queen about Australian Indapendance.

Footage was shown of an address he gave in Parliament during a Queen's visit to Australia but 6 weeks after he took office in 1991. The Prime Minister made it quite clear during the address that he believed the only way for Australia was indapendance. The Queen gave what I considered to be an acknowledging, though slight, nod of the head but remained, as she does and does so well, perfectly poker faced.

The documentary advanced and around 10 or so minutes later it examined the occasion which had seen the Prime Minister travel to Balmoral (undertaking an official visit to the UK) where he again felt it appropriate to speak at length about the matter with the Queen, and who he said after having made it abundantly clear that Australia's position was to seriously seek complete indapendance, that Her Majesty's reaction was one of a reluctant (yet understanding) acceptance and went on to say "I think I need a stiff drink now" to which the PM replied "make that two".

I just thought that said a lot about how the issue has affected Elizabeth on a personal level. Evidently, and although the Queen has long stated her support and continued affection and admiration for Australia and her peoples' should we become a republic or othewise, it would be an occasion which would sadden her and not that that is any reason not to address the issue (not that it inspires much enthusiasm at the current time) but upon hearing that I was rather touched to learn that that was infact her reaction.
 
Last edited:
I would love to see this Doco, MR. I hope someone uploads it on youtube or something.
 
The British royal family has underlined Australia's importance to the Commonwealth with the Queen summoning Prime Minister Julia Gillard for a private chat during the royal wedding day.

Gillard handed a royal audience

Up to a million people were estimated to have lined the parade route with even the Queen dropping her guard following the outpouring of love for the monarchy.

"It is amazing," she chirped after returning to Buckingham Palace following the wedding ceremony.
Click to expand...
 
The documentary 1st half of last Thursday's Q&A was a triumph of inellectual honesty. The good,the bad and the ugly of Australia's intelligentsia assembled as the panel in front of a studio audience of Australia's top secondary school debators for the discussion afterwards.

In the documentary, one of Australia's top monarchists, Justice Mr Michael Kirby used my term of "rebels" to describe the rebels.

Clarence House banned an Austrliam comic outfit from ever using any footage of The Wedding. This has caused a muffled hissey fit amonst Australia's intelligentsia as expressed by the panel.

One of our monarchist leaders, the former Prime Minister Mr John Howard denounced that comic outfit on national television for its abusive, bullying practices.

Clarence House banning that outfit shows it is rock solid in commitment for The Duchess in her anti-bullying campgain.
 
I don't think that The Chaser was intending to bully Catherine; rather, it was supposed to be a satirical look at the whole paraphernalia surrounding the big event. From the one excerpt which I've seen on the Q & A program, Prince Phillip was one of the targets, quoting some of the less felicitous comments he's made over the years.

I don't much like The Chaser, but I don't find anything alarming in satire of any sort: it's a time-honoured feature of literary and artistic expression, and England is the world-standard bearer in this sort of program, after all.

My view is that it's self-defeating to ban anything, even shows like The Chaser. Most of us, if we bothered to watch it, would have yawned and it would have died a natural death. As for Clarence House's decision to intervene, I think it ill-judged. Any institution or people who can't laugh at themselves is in trouble.
 
:previous:
Maybe Clarence House was aware of the national uproar that followed The Chaser's "satire" involving "kids with cancer" and was equally unimpressed.
 
I do not wish to see any more of Her Majesty's Dominons abolish the Crown. Though the Imperial Parliament/British Parliament cannot directly interfere with the internal happenings of the Dominons for the most part, I consider the British Empire to be alive and strong. The Statue of Westminster in 1931 and the Imperial Conference of 1926 before that provided that the Dominons mentioned would be seen as 'Independent Countries WITH IN THE EYES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW' but as all sixteen realms still hold Her Majesty as Queen that still constitutes the continued existance of the British Empire. However none of the Dominons are suboridinate to the United Kingdom but equal parters and BROTHERS in the international community, the Empire is a BROTHERHOOD of countries. I believe in being proud of that. I fully respect individual identity of the Commonwealth of Australia, so please no one take any offense, I only mean to say we're in this together. In my heart I just want to say please don't leave us. And that being said, I would never consider the Queen a foreign Head of State. If you have a Canadian, an Austrialian, a Brit, a Jamacian, and a Chilean in a room there is only ONE foreigner present. I'm speaking from a poetic stand point of course. I love Australian culture and history, and believe that it is a very important part of a whole. Being loyal to and or toasting the Queen is not an insult to Australian identity. But forgeting your roots and history is an insult to ANY culture whether they are Republic or Her Majesty's Dominon. But Australia is a Dominon, and I beg that they will not forget their common root and history with the other fifteen dominions as well as with the United Kingdom. I love all the realms with all my heart and pray for their preservation regularly. I hope any Australian who reads this understands I say this with good intentions, and I hope it is taken that way. I respect everyone and their opinons in the matter.
 
Last edited:
:previous: We are not a part of a British Empire at all. We are a part of the Commonwealth of Nations by prerogative.

Furthermore, Australia is not a dominion. It is a realm.

Australia is a sovereign state. A crown entirely seperate to that of the UK and no degree of 'poetic licence' will change that fact ;)
 
Last edited:
The British Empire ended decades ago - thank goodness.

Australians are increasingly of non-European, let alone non-British backgrounds with no links to Britain. And many of those with 'British' backgrounds are actually Irish which isn't all that supportive either.

The Queen is a foreigner. She speaks with a foreign accent. She lives in a foreign country. She and her family promote a foreign countries interests over those of Australia. This is why Australians want an Australian as Head of State - in time.

We decided by a fairly small margin, in 1999, to keep the Queen mainly because the alternative offered was to have Parliament chose the Head of State. The vote was 55% against and 45% for. Had the option been for an elected Head of State we would probably already be a republic.

I notice that you are from the US - a republic - but you don't want other countries to have that same opportunity.

Personallyn I voted NO in 1999 but would vote YES now - as I simply would like to have a Head of State who is one of us. I would like to the next time the US President toasts the Australian Head of State that the toast isn't to the Queen of a foreign nation - or in fact the Queen of a series of foreign nations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I most certainly understand. I know that Australia is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, I simply said that I think of it as the Empire, but WITHOUT it's members being subordinate to the United Kingdom, but completely EQUAL with it. I also use the term Her Majesty's Dominion interchangeably with Commonwealth Realm as do some others, I also have known people from both Australia and Canada who use the term respectively. I completely recognize the independence of the Commonwealth of Australia and apologise if my terminology may have been taken wrongly.

I am familiar with the situation concerning Republicanism in Australia, I keep tabs on the going ons of all the Realms. I know the Republican position, but I also happen to know there are those loyal to the Queen in Australia. Also I am American, but have had a devout interest in British and Dominion affairs since I was a child, I also have relatives in the United Kingdom, and intend to move there for good. I am a devout monarchist, and very loyal to Her Majesty. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy as well are all other Commonwealth Realms. Just because I live in America does not mean I am into republicanism. I do not align with US Party's because they are not applicable to me, but I do align with UK Parties and take a stance on Parties in the individual realms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren said:
:previous:
Maybe Clarence House was aware of the national uproar that followed The Chaser's "satire" involving "kids with cancer" and was equally unimpressed.
Click to expand...

True enough. That memory wasn't lost to me, either.

I was, however, reflecting more on what I believe is the folly of censoring any political satire. As I mentioned, the best in the world at this are the very clever Brits.

I've now viewed most of the intended program and with one exception I didn't think any of it up to much at all. Another, the spoof of Candle in the Wind was o.k., until it became, in my opinion, scurrilous.

Nonetheless, I would have let it go to air - the BRF has had to sustain much worse and much more clever lampooning over the years from locals and have remained quite intact and unscathed.
 
I do not watch "The Chaser", but I am cheesed off that I was denied the opportunity to watch that episode if I had wished to do so.
 
JimmyA said:
I am familiar with the situation concerning Republicanism in Australia, I keep tabs on the going ons of all the Realms. I know the Republican position, but I also happen to know there are those loyal to the Queen in Australia. Also I am American, but have had a devout interest in British and Dominion affairs since I was a child, I also have relatives in the United Kingdom, and intend to move there for good. I am a devout monarchist, and very loyal to Her Majesty. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy as well are all other Commonwealth Realms. Just because I live in America does not mean I am into republicanism. I do not align with US Party's because they are not applicable to me, but I do align with UK Parties and take a stance on Parties in the individual realms.
Click to expand...

I think jimmyA for you to comment that you know the Republican position in Australia is a little conceited. I don't theink anyone can know that position unless they are Australian. Similarly I don't understand the nationalism that is on display in America at the moment.

I obviously am interested in the British royals, but I voted for a republic in 1999 and would vote for it again. I have no problem being a member nation of the Commonwealth, but I do not want to have ties to the next generation of the Royal family, and I certainly don't want to have to pay for their lavish and in some cases outrageous lives. I don't beliee that anyone has the right to be called Your Highness and in particular the generation of British royals at the moment don't show me any reason why they have such an exalted title. Australia is a mature country, ties that were relevant and needed by both countries in past times are not now relevant.

Your own countrymen overthrew the English rulers in dramatic fashion, Australia I don't think wants to resort to that, but it is time to let the apron strings go.

Please don't presume to understand what other people feeel about their countries, it is offensive to other nationalities.
 
Then I apologise to you, I only meant that I have researched it with serious interest, I meant no disrespect to anyone. I will watch the way I saw things a little better in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimmyA said:
I most certainly understand. I know that Australia is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, I simply said that I think of it as the Empire, but WITHOUT it's members being subordinate to the United Kingdom, but completely EQUAL with it. I also use the term Her Majesty's Dominion interchangeably with Commonwealth Realm as do some others, I also have known people from both Australia and Canada who use the term respectively. I completely recognize the independence of the Commonwealth of Australia and apologise if my terminology may have been taken wrongly.
Click to expand...


Not a problem, Jimmy :)

Though to use the term 'dominion' does suggest that the particular place you speak of is a subordiante protectorate to a governing body. A dependency of a sovereign state, thus they would not be of equal standing.

It's not that I mistook the terminology, it just simply isn't correct.

Thanks for your response though.

and I certainly don't want to have to pay for their lavish and in some cases outrageous lives
Click to expand...

We, Australian's, don't pay for their lifestyles though?

The only taxpayer money used for royals is during official visits to Australia, being those visits have come at the request of the Australian and state governments.

Iluvbertie said:
I would like to the next time the US President toasts the Australian Head of State that the toast isn't to the Queen of a foreign nation - or in fact the Queen of a series of foreign nations.
Click to expand...

They don't toast the Queen of a foreign nation, they toast the Queen of Australia.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
We decided by a fairly small margin, in 1999, to keep the Queen mainly because the alternative offered was to have Parliament chose the Head of State. The vote was 55% against and 45% for. Had the option been for an elected Head of State we would probably already be a republic.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

May I ask what kind of constitutional power an Australian president should have? - That is, in order for the voters to vote in favour of Australia becoming a republic.
To put it very simple. Do you prefer:

A) To elect a head of state without political power, but whose job will only be to represent your country? I.e. among the candidates (and not least their spouses) you believe will be most suited to represent you. More a diplomatic post and "the face of Australia".

B) To elect a head of state with some constitutional power? I.e. signing bills in order for them to become valid as laws, to formally appoint a new government, new ministers and so on. No de facto political power but nevertheless some ceremonial power. A mix between the chairman of the Parliament and the Governor General.

C) To elect a head of state, who is also the head of the government? I.e. very much with political power. Akin to the US president.

or D)?
 
Last edited:
B) To elect a head of state with some constitutional power? I.e. signing bills in order for them to become valid as laws, to formally appoint a new government, new ministers and so on. No de facto political power but nevertheless some ceremonial power. A mix between the chairman of the Parliament and the Governor General.
Click to expand...

This would be my personal choice, Muhler.

I would not support a system by where an elected President has loyalties to any particular party.

Under no circumstances would I wish to adopt the American system of government in any way, shape or form.
 
Last edited:
Madame Royale said:
They don't toast the Queen of a foreign nation, they toast the Queen of Australia.
Click to expand...


Who is also the Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada etc.

That is my point - she isn't just the Queen of Australia.

When these toasts are being done the Queen is rarely there as she is in a foreign nation - one where Australians travelling on an Australian passport have to pass through a barrier labelled 'aliens'.
 
Muhler said:
That's interesting.

May I ask what kind of constitutional power an Australian president should have? - That is, in order for the voters to vote in favour of Australia becoming a republic.
To put it very simple. Do you prefer:

A) To elect a head of state without political power, but whose job will only be to represent your country? I.e. among the candidates (and not least their spouses) you believe will be most suited to represent you. More a diplomatic post and "the face of Australia".

B) To elect a head of state with some constitutional power? I.e. signing bills in order for them to become valid as laws, to formally appoint a new government, new ministers and so on. No de facto political power but nevertheless some ceremonial power. A mix between the chairman of the Parliament and the Governor General.

C) To elect a head of state, who is also the head of the government? I.e. very much with political power. Akin to the US president.

or D)?
Click to expand...


B - the powers currently held by the GG without the power to dismiss the elected government (as happened in 1975 and 1932 - the 1932 dismissal was of the NSW elected government by the way).

Definitely not the sort of powers that the US President has - too much power in the hands on one person is anti-democratic in my opinion.
 
I agree with Madame Royale. Probably, it's what we would have instituted had the referendum succeeded.

The failure of the referendum was strange, considering that some extreme left-wingers whom I've met around the university all voted 'no'!!!!! Their reasons were the usual ones - they wanted to elect the President directly, rather than have him/her appointed by consensus of parliament. To me, this last would have assured that the President remained a-political, so far as possible.

Interestingly, the tv program which we saw as part of Q & A repeated Prince Phillip's comment: don't they know what's good for them? The Queen's response was 'they just couldn't agree on a model'. As usual, HM was fully aware of what's happening throughout the Commonwealth: she really is remarkable in this and much admired, everywhere, for it.

The American model of government would be unacceptable to me, as well. No doubt it suits them, admirably, and works well for them, but it's a long way from the Westminster system, which, with the legal structures we've inherited, is England's greatest gift to the Commonwealth of Nations.
 
Thank you for your replies. :)

I would chose option B as well, should DK ever become a republic. With one difference: I would prefer the head of state to be appointed by the Parliament.
 
My preference,too, Muhler.

I don't wish to start a discussion here, but I'd be interested to know if the republican movement is a serious proposition in Denmark.

My feeling is that when these constitutional issues come to a head, people tend to vote for the status quo. After all, neither the Queen of Denmark nor the Queen of Australia can do anything to impinge on our lives or freedoms, the ultimate considerations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
60
Views
7K
SLV
SLV
Marengo
  • Locked
General News for Queen Elizabeth II: April 2021 - September 2022
12 13 14
Replies
398
Views
53K
JessRulz
JessRulz
muriel
Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Celebrations: 2022
26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
105K
yukari
Y
AC21091968
The Queen: A Life in Pictures (by Victoria Murphy)
Replies
1
Views
889
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
LadyFinn
The Crown Princess Couple's 10th Wedding Anniversary: 19th June 2020
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom