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
I don't have a problem in some ways with the renaming of the street but I do think it shouldn't have been the one named after Parkes - afterall he was the father of federation - the man who really got the ball rolling to have Australia become a nation.

For anyone who doesn't know who Parkes was: Henry Parkes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and his major speech that began the movement to Federation - Tenterfield Oration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is wrong to remove the name of a true patriotic Australian for a person who isn't an Australian and only visits every five or so years and whose heart is clearly in another country.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Understandable.

I don't have an issue with it personally.
 
Last edited:
I do not think that the end of the United Kingdom would have any impact on the Australian Crown as there are no longer any constitutional ties between Great Britain and Australia. The constitution states that:

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.​

This is in the preamble of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and as such it is open to interpretation. So if the United Kingdom was dissolved the argument could be made that the legal successor to its sovereignty is now the King or Queen of England. The High Court of Australia might be required to provide an official interpretation to the Government, but I do not think the constitution would need to be altered.
 
Last edited:
[Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll
Australian support for monarchy hits all-time high amid Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations | Breaking National News & Australian News | The Courier-Mail

Australian support for a republic is now at a record high of 58%, with republicans at 32% and undecided at a mere 7%. Even among Labour voters, the monarchy narrowly trumps an elected president 48% to 47%.

For those who say the monarchy will be in trouble in Australia upon the accession of Prince Charles, the poll also found support for Charles as King of Australia is at 48% compared to 43% against. Prince William is still more popular though with 58% popular support as the King of Australia.

It is interesting that the poll gave respondents a specific republican model to compare to a monarchy when republicans are unable to choose one to be put to the people at the referendum they want to have.
 
:previous:
Interesting, thanks for posting!
The situation is almost exactly the same in Canada, although the Canadian Monarchy appears to be even more secure.
 
Artemisia said:
The situation is almost exactly the same in Canada, although the Canadian Monarchy appears to be even more secure.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at the similarity in the poll results between the two realms. I know Canada maintains more of the trappings (for want of a better word) of the Monarchy and it enjoys more frequent royal visits so it is good to see that my fellow Australians are still supportive of the Queen and her family.
 
Thanks for posting RoyalistRiley. I have had a feeling support for a republic has been dwindling for a while now so it's interesting to see these poll results. (I think the behaviour of our pollies might be one of the reasons people no longer want to dispense with the Queen as our head of state).
 
We have a similar aversion to politicians here too, Argyle, which is only getting more and more entrenched everyday.
 
I was surprised that they still did take that pledge anyway. I thought it had changed back in the 80s.
 
An online poll on Channel 7 is running at 70% against the move of the Australian Girl Guides. I'm quite impressed that the opposition is so high. The new pledge is awful and quite meaningless, but, unfortunately, a sign of the times. There is obviously someone high up in the Guides who has a particular agenda to push. The girls I saw interviewed were well rehearsed as they talked about community, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, being true to themselves etc. I'm just surprised they said nothing about acknowledging traditional owners.
 
It's high time for the changes, I think, and opens the door for more girls to join the movement, not only because of the change regarding the Queen but also regarding God. Nearly 19% of Australians stated that they had "No religion" in last year's census.
 
Perhaps in regards to religion, but I agree with RoyalistRiley that there is no person with whom a comparison can be drawn in regards to service to ones community and indeed, communities abroad when speaking of the Queen. She is untouchable!

As TomBert has mentioned, clearly someone with an agenda to push.

I'm just surprised they said nothing about acknowledging traditional owners
Click to expand...

Indeed they should!
 
An insult to Queen. Dedicating whole life to the commonwealth and this how people treat you with utter contempt.
 
It isn't utter contempt but a reflection of the fact that in today's Australia she is a meaningless figure head who lives 10,000 miles away and appears on our coins.

The young people I teach don't even know who the lady is on our coins until I tell them - she simply doesn't register on their radar.

During the Jubilee events I was asked about her in some classes and the general consensus was surprise that she had any connnection to Australia at all - they simply don't register with her being relevant to them.

When I was a kid and we sang 'God Save the Queen' as our national anthem and every school, if not every classroom had a picture of The Queen it was far more likely that everyone knew who she was but these days kids don't necessarily even see pictures of her - no pictures in schools or public buildings anymore, no teaching about British history, the only mention comes in Year 9 (in NSW) with the coming of Federation - but that is Queen Victoria.

She simply isn't relevant to these kids so why refer to her at all? She has no meaning to young Australians - certainly the ones I teach.
 
A very dissapointing decision by the Australian Girl Guides IMO. I agree that the new pledge is totally meaningless "I pledge to be true to myself", what does that mean and how does that fit in with being a member of the Girl Guides? The have also dropped a clause about obedience because it was felt that that was a no no for women in the modern era. The reality is we all have to be obedient in some respects, we have to obey road rules for example. As for the religious objections, could they have not simply made that optional for the small percentage that don't believe in God? (only 19% according to the last census). The Queen is our head of state and that is a fact. By all means lobby, protest and push for a republic if that is what you want but how anyone can argue the Queen is irrelevant to Australia as we stand now is beyond me.

Iluvbertie said:
It isn't utter contempt but a reflection of the fact that in today's Australia she is a meaningless figure head who lives 10,000 miles away and appears on our coins.

The young people I teach don't even know who the lady is on our coins until I tell them - she simply doesn't register on their radar.

During the Jubilee events I was asked about her in some classes and the general consensus was surprise that she had any connnection to Australia at all - they simply don't register with her being relevant to them.

When I was a kid and we sang 'God Save the Queen' as our national anthem and every school, if not every classroom had a picture of The Queen it was far more likely that everyone knew who she was but these days kids don't necessarily even see pictures of her - no pictures in schools or public buildings anymore, no teaching about British history, the only mention comes in Year 9 (in NSW) with the coming of Federation - but that is Queen Victoria.

She simply isn't relevant to these kids so why refer to her at all? She has no meaning to young Australians - certainly the ones I teach.
Click to expand...

Maybe she has become irrelevant to today's school children because her role and importance is not even taught in schools these days. As you have pointed out yourself, no pictures, no God Save the Queen, no British history. Instead of compounding this situation through changes like the Girl Guides have made maybe we should try to rectify it by including more of this information about the role of the Queen as our head of state, not less, so she is not irrelevant to today's school children.

I understand the numbers of Girl Guides are dwindling and this was an attempt to boost them. Are girls really not joining because they have to pledge to serve the Queen and God? I doubt it. It will be interesting in a few years if numbers have increased.
 
Last edited:
As what we teach is set by the governments of each state, and now the federal government with the national curriculum it is clear that this anti-British history push is coming from governments - of both persuasions.

The push is for more Asian history as that is seen as more relevant to Australia in the future.

History only gets 50 hours a year in NSW high schools and we do more than any other state - and even the new national curriculum which suggests 80 hours is only getting 50 in NSW and less in the other states has virtually no mention of British history - because the governments don't want that taught.

Whether it is a republic by stealth or whether it is truly reflective of the changing nature of the nation I don't know but the Queen is totally irrelevant to us in Australia today. Think about the fact that in a couple of weeks she and her family will be at the Olympics cheering on the defeat of Australian teams in events - and then tell me that we need her - her own granddaughter is competing against us.

As for the comment about God - only 19% might be of no religion but the other 81% don't all believe in the same god. I teach at a Christian school and we obviously have students who believe in the Christian God but we also have students who believe in a myriad of other gods - as the Hindus have over 3000 which god to they include in the oath??
 
That "the Queen is totally irrelevant to us in Australia today" is just a personal opinion and a glib generalisation. Section one of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia states that the Parliament is comprised of the House the House of Representatives, a Senate, and the Queen. I think that makes her pretty relevant to the Australian Government. Last October I was part of the crowd of nearly 100,000 people who came along to see the Queen in Melbourne. I think that makes her pretty relevant to thousands of people in Melbourne (as well as the thousands in Canberra, Brisbane and Perth).

As for the Olympics, who knows who the Queen will support? Do we know if she supports England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games? I don't think it really matters, and it is hardly an argument for Australia to become a republic. Only the Queen has a constitutional relationship with Australia, so it is irrelevant whom the rest of her family support.

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming nothing has changed since the Queen first visited Australia in 1954. I think most Australians are probably entirely indifferent to what form of Government we have. But for many Australians the Queen of Australia remains deeply relevant, and it would be a mistake to underestimate that fact.
 
I consider that the Queen is, and will remain, relevant to Australia, but only in a historical context. Her Majesty has no real role in our day to day lives anymore. The Constitution provides for the British Monarch to be the Australian Monarch, but legislation has gradually removed our formal ties to the Mother Country, and we are now completely independent for all practical intents and purposes.

I was a Monarchist when I joined this board some years ago, but since then I have become a Republican, and it was because of the discussions I participated in here which caused me to think deeply about the issues, that I changed my opinion. I am still very interested in the British Monarchy, and it is still very relevant to Australia because it is part of us, and me and those of similar heritage in particular.

My father's parents were English, and my mother's grandparents were English and Irish and there is a dash of Scottish blood not too far back. British history is my history; my ancestors lie in British soil. I feel a strong connection to Britain. I was born a British Subject. My blood is British, but my heart is Australian, and I want someone as my Head of State who also owes their first loyalty to Australia and who cheers for Australia at the Olympic Games without having to think about it.

I think it is a mistake to underestimate the average Australian's interest in the form of government we have, particularly when it comes to the fact that our Head of State is not Australian. Young people who were born into the modern Australia which has a completely independent judicial and legislative system, and particularly those whose cultural background is not English or even British, want an Australian citizen representing them on the international stage.
 
One of the most ironic things for Australia to become a republic it needs Royal Assent. Talk about "Turkey voting for Christmas". :ROFLMAO:
 
Roslyn - I thought I was the only one who had become a republican from participating in this board but I too have come to see a need, as soon as possible, for Australia to have an Australian as our Head of State instead of a foreigner whose first allegiance must be to another country.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Roslyn - I thought I was the only one who had become a republican from participating in this board but I too have come to see a need, as soon as possible, for Australia to have an Australian as our Head of State instead of a foreigner whose first allegiance must be to another country.
Click to expand...
The Queen's allegiance is to all countries she is Head of State. The Commonwealth realms are all personal union with each other i.e all sharing the same monarch but all are independent states.
 
royalistbert said:
The Queen's allegiance is to all countries she is Head of State. The Commonwealth realms are all personal union with each other i.e all sharing the same monarch but all are independent states.
Click to expand...


I am aware of that but she can't have an equal allegiance to all 16 of those countries. She doesn't live in all 16 countries does she? If you have a true allegiance to a country you live there, support that country in all its endeavours, never go against the interests of that country (William actively campaigned against Australia getting the World Cup - he had to as he was supporting England). She doesn't do those things - she is English with lip service to the rest of the UK and laughs at the far-flung peoples who think she actually has any real interest in what we are doing.

She signed away the Empire, she signed Europe into the EU - at an initial economic cost to her other realms - she doesn't care really.

She is a foreigner, doesn't live here, makes platitudinous speeches and people fawn over her - but she isn't an Australian and so shouldn't be our Head of State.
 
:previous: As is your opinion, naturally.

Though it seems to annoy you (judging by your past posts) that the Queen does not publically express her sporting allegiance. Seems a rather trivial matter to me.

No doubt the Queen is happy for any of her Commonwealth realms' achievements in the sporting arena. That she should fundamentally support the United Kingdom, specifically England no doubt, is understandable and I'll not endeavour to find fault in it as to do so is quite unreasonable.

at an initial economic cost to her other realms - she doesn't care really.
Click to expand...

You evidently cared (?) to neglect the point that the Queen acts upon the advice of her Prime Minister and as such, the government of the day. To suggest she doesn't care is an irrational statement and without foundation as you are in no position to pass off your prejudiced view as being a factual reality of the situation that was.

William actively campaigned against Australia getting the World Cup - he had to as he was supporting England
Click to expand...

You have brought this up so often before. Though why I'm not sure as William is not as of yet our Head of State and may very well not even end up our Head of State. I don't think the man should be constitutionally restricted from advocating his support for his home nation. It's such an unrealistic expectation that he should refrain from vocalising his support or be actively involved. Infact, to suggest otherwise appears to me as being rather petty about it all.
 
Last edited:
Well put Madame Royale. Iluvbertie seems to have lost the plot a bit: the Queen laughs at us for our loyalty? What a ridiculous comment; and an insult to the Queen who obviously cares deeply about all her realms. Then the "argument" about sporting allegiances. Well call me old fashioned, but it is not something very high on my list of what a head of state should do. But if it was I can see no reason why the Governor-General could not fulfil that role as well. But then again our current Governor-General is from Queensland, so I don't know if I quite trust her not to work against the interests of Victoria (though she can work against the interests of NSW all she likes).
 
You don't get it do you.

Had Australia won the right to host the World Cup and The Queen and Charles both died then by the time we hosted them William, who had actively campaigned against us getting them would be the person to preside at the opening of the World Cup as the Head of State. How can you justify that?

I want a Head of State who can represent us fully and wholly - not one who has a divided loyalty, not one who signed legislation that harmed the other realms at the time - signing the UK into the EU hurt the economies of the other realms at the time - so she actively took action against the best interests of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

She can't represent Australia and a Head of State should be able to do so - simple point. If she can't represent us then she should do the decent thing and stand down as our Head of State and simply continue to be Head of State of one country.

I used to actually respect The Queen and her family until I became a contributor to this board 4 years ago. It is this board that opened my eyes to her failings as a monarch and a mother and made me think about why Australia should have a Head of State who lives 10,000 miles away and can't represent us and us alone - as a true Head of State should do.
 
Perhaps it is a NSW thing, because I totally agree with Iluvbertie.
 
Iluvbertie said:
You don't get it do you.

Had Australia won the right to host the World Cup and The Queen and Charles both died then by the time we hosted them William, who had actively campaigned against us getting them would be the person to preside at the opening of the World Cup as the Head of State. How can you justify that?

I want a Head of State who can represent us fully and wholly - not one who has a divided loyalty, not one who signed legislation that harmed the other realms at the time - signing the UK into the EU hurt the economies of the other realms at the time - so she actively took action against the best interests of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

She can't represent Australia and a Head of State should be able to do so - simple point. If she can't represent us then she should do the decent thing and stand down as our Head of State and simply continue to be Head of State of one country.

I used to actually respect The Queen and her family until I became a contributor to this board 4 years ago. It is this board that opened my eyes to her failings as a monarch and a mother and made me think about why Australia should have a Head of State who lives 10,000 miles away and can't represent us and us alone - as a true Head of State should do.
Click to expand...

It's not that we don't "get it", as you say, there are those who just dont share your opinions and rightly so.

I must stress that it's not your opinion I take issue with, it's the seemingly consistent drive to reinforce your opinions as though they accurately present a clear and defineable assessment of what a person, who is not you, thinks or feels, i.e; as fact.

It's not the first time you've done it so you may not be aware that you do it. If that be the case, then you are now.

As for your hopes for an Australia with an Australian Head of State then I could never fault you for that. It's your right and that right needs to be respected. It just isn't representative of the sentiment of some people here and naturally, in the community.
 
Last edited:
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