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

[Muhler]

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.

No, not serious. I'd say about 25% here in DK wish to abolish the monarchy. (*) Either out of principle, because a hereditary monarchy is basically undemocratic. Or because they are genuine republicans, who prefer a president as head of state. And then there are those who are very much against the priviledged lives the royals have and that's their main reason.

Many if not most of those who are against the monarchy tend to go for status quo should they really have to choose between a monarch or a president.
You will often hear the most critical voices among intellectuals, partly because their peers are against the monarchy, and partly because in principle.... and so on. But how would they vote when they stand alone in the box and are about to put an X?
Another loud group is often seen among the comments in the various newspapers. They are basically against the monarchy (and anything else that doesn't benefit themselves) because they are not royals themselves. They would be the first to complain about the first president as well.

(*) The approval rating however is somewhere between 75-90%, so it's very subjective and depends on how you ask the question.

 

[Polly]

Thanks for that, Muhler.

Denmark's situation sounds similar to that in Australia.

Dare I say it - another bond between us,

 

[Roslyn]

Coming in late to this, but I, too, favour option B.

 

[Polly]

Let's hope that if we do become a republic (getting more remote,in my opinion) that we do institute Muhler's option B.

I think that the monarchy would go some distance towards consolidation in Australia if male primogeniture were abandoned as it's been in other monarchies and if the now offensive restrictions on the monarch's marrying a catholic were removed. This last was understandable at a particular moment in history but the circumstances are not longer relevant.

I understand that Britain has many more legal, complex niceties than any other country to consider, but the longer the delay the greater the irritation. Should William and Catherine's first born be a girl, the rumblings will grow deafening.

 

[Thena]

Oddly enough, I kept hearing British commentators saying that the reluctance to change the succession laws was because it required assent from all the commonwealth realms, but no one wanted to bring it up because of Australia.

 

[Polly]

Yes, I've heard that too.

It is, however,a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Nor is it true. I was somewhat irritated to read such calumnies in the English press.

 

[AnthonyB]

British royals?

I, like I think many Australians, had no real intention of watching the recent royal wedding but ended up watching several hours of it. However it got me thinking about the monarchy.

Like the title of this forum refers to the House of Windsor, in Australia the recent wedding was decribed as a "British" royal wedding. Oddly although it was a marriage between two english people, it was also the marriage of the 2nd in line to thrones of the other 15 commonwealth realms, Although once many of these realms once saw themselves as British, I would be very surprised if many citizens in any of them would now use that description. (Leaving aside the question of how many Scots would still call themselves British!)

"British Royals" does not acknowledge the other commonwealth realms. "British and Commonwealth Royals" is problematic because they aren't the royal family of a majority of the Commonwealth anymore.

"Commonwealth Realm Royals" sounds rather beauracratic but maybe it would be more accurate. "British and Commonwealth Realm Royals" is a mouthfull but except for the historical linkages is it right for the British realm to be the only named realm. For example, the Canadian and Australian crowns, as they are now distinct monarchies held in personal union, are not insignificant monarchies in their own right. In terms of GDP they are the 3rd and 5th largest monarchies (with Australia having a good chance of in the near future of passing Spain into 4th place.) with a combined GDP greater then Britain. In terms of territories they would probably be 1st and 2nd. Differing measure would get differing ranking but suffice to say they are not trivial realms.

So should the "British Royals" be described in another way and what would your suggestions be?

 

[ldmemail]

Australia is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign.

The Queen's relationship to Australia is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom.
The Queen's Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
However, it seems that the Majesty of the Australian Crown is vested in the Monarch alone and not her family - therefore there is a Queen of Australia but no Royal Family! Therefore the Royal Family are the British Royal Family.

 

[AnthonyB]

ldmemail,

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the situation in Australia the same for all other 15 Commonwealth realms so it is not unique to Australia.
There are no titles other then the Queen in the Australian monarchy but there is an order of succession inherent in having a monarchy. If we remain a monarchy we don't get to vote on the who out of the royals gets our crown (We might well grant the throne to the former Mary Donaldson or more likely her sons). However by convention and agreement we will choose the same person as the other realms.

I'm curious is the crown really invested in the whole royal family, not the monarch alone? The fact that none of the other royals have titles from (to the best of my limited knowledge of Aus and NZ) the other commonwealth realms really make a difference? What makes a member of the royal family, titles, being in the order of succession or royal blood?
The Australian monarchy has an hier and a order of succession. If the Queen is Queen of Australia in Australia, I suppose my question what is the phrase for the people who are to succeed her?

I suppose what I was trying to say was the recent wedding in Britain was in Britian a British Royal wedding. In Australia, however it was not just a British royal wedding but also the marriage of the 2nd in line to our thone in the order of succession of our throne but there is no simply no language to describe in Australian terms a marriage of people in order of our succession. Any of the parliaments of the commonwealth realms might one day choose to alter their order of succession (or not alter if the UK does) but we don't have language to describe that?

To follow your logic, the future King of Australia wife will not be Queen of Australia, which makes some sense. I presume a future monarch might in consultation with the Australian Commonwealth parliament create a title of Queen of Australia for his consort? (Giving us two titles in our monarcy)

 

[Madame Royale]

The divine Her Excellency, Governor-General Quentin Bryce has met Pope Benedict for the first time at the Vatican during her visit to Rome for the 150th anniversary of Italy's republic.

Governor-General meets Pope in Rome - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

(Click on the image to see the higher quality photograph)

Quentin looked, as usual, unassumingly elegant during the audience. With the observed black 3/4 sleeved cocktail dress and two strands of cultured pearls, HE chose to adorn her coiffed 'do' with a fine gold chantilly lace mantilla.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

However, it seems that the Majesty of the Australian Crown is vested in the Monarch alone and not her family - therefore there is a Queen of Australia but no Royal Family! Therefore the Royal Family are the British Royal Family.

The Royal Family are the British Royal Family as they simply use their British titles across all Commonwealth Realms as courtesy titles. It does not have any impact them going on a tour or attending engagements representing the Queen in her Australian, Canadian, New Zealand etc.

Even though I think it would be a good idea, it is not practical in today's world where there is republican sentiment lurking around the corner in places like Australia to create titles for the Royal Family for each member (e.g. to hypothetically make Prince Charles The Duke of Canberra, Princess Anne as the Duchess of Victoria, Prince Andrew the Duke of Perth and Edward and Sophie as the Earl and Countess of Brisbane). It would also create a large degree of confusion amongst people.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And of course some of these titles already exist e.g. Duke of Perth - John Eric Drummond is the present Earl of Perth and 15th Duke of Perth (Jacobite creation).

The Brisbane title is extinct now.

I agree we don't want them having titles associated here. The time to do that past 100 years ago.

Had Queen Victoria encouraged her younger grandsons to be Kings of Australia/Canada/New Zealand they may be far more acceptable today as they would be seen as 'ours' but now they are foreigners who don't live here.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I agree we don't want them having titles associated here. The time to do that past 100 years ago.

Had Queen Victoria encouraged her younger grandsons to be Kings of Australia/Canada/New Zealand they may be far more acceptable today as they would be seen as 'ours' but now they are foreigners who don't live here.

Was there ever any concrete proposals for such a thing to happen or was it one of those things that only seemed like a good idea with hindsight?

I simply think the best way for the Royal Family to endear themselves to Australians is not with titles but by simply making regular visits and staying involved with various charities and social institutions

 

[Iluvbertie]

Was there ever any concrete proposals for such a thing to happen or was it one of those things that only seemed like a good idea with hindsight?

I don't think there was ever any suggestion of that - and Victoria wouldn't have given up any of her prerogatives anyway but...

 

[Osipi]

I simply think the best way for the Royal Family to endear themselves to Australians is not with titles but by simply making regular visits and staying involved with various charities and social institutions

I think this is exactly what happened when William visited Australia and New Zealand recently after the devastation of the floods and earthquakes. It was a trip he suggested making because he wanted to and was very interested in the families that were hard hit and listening to the crews that did the search and rescue during that time. The "just call me William" tells me he isn't out for the King of Australia and New Zealand title but rather concerned about the people.

 

[wbenson]

Paul Keating told the Queen monarchy was 'an anachronism' - Telegraph

Paul Keating, who was Australian prime minister from 1991 to 1995, has revealed in his memoirs that he once told the Queen that the monarchy was an "anachronism".

"I told the Queen as politely and gently as I could that I believed the majority of Australians felt the monarchy was an anachronism; that it had drifted into obsolescence. Not for any reason associated with the Queen personally, but for the simple reason she was not in a position to represent their aspirations. They were Australian, she was British," he wrote.

 

[purple_Lulu]

The government following Keating's conducted a referendum on Australia becoming a republic.

And the majority of Australians voted against it (I was amongst the minority.)

It makes me so cross to hear my compatriots railing against the monarchy when they had the opportunity for change and voted against it!

 

[Madame Royale]

The monarchy, PR wise, took a beating in the nineties and has gradually regained some ground since the Queen's Golden Jubilee I'd estimate.

Times have again changed since Mr Keatings meeting with the Queen at Balmoral and what he stated then does not reflect the current mood. That mood being a mix of deep affection for the indavidual as monarch, a relaxed attitude towards a prospective transition (whenever that may be) and a renewed curiosity and interest in the institutions three most popular members (The Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge).

Currently, 48% would vote for a republic, 38% would vote to retain the monarchy and 14% are undecided. There is no mandate for a referrendum at this time.

Mr Keating also said something to the effect that Australia would be working closely with Indonesia, and thus our national interests would have shifted direction. Needless to say that diplomatic relations between these two nations specifically are, although manageable, not particularly warm and necessarily fruitful at the best of times.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The government following Keating's conducted a referendum on Australia becoming a republic.

And the majority of Australians voted against it (I was amongst the minority.)

It makes me so cross to hear my compatriots railing against the monarchy when they had the opportunity for change and voted against it!

But why did they vote against it?

How many of the No votes were by monarchists and how many by republicans who would prefer to wait until another chance came along to vote for the type of republic they want.

This is why the current Labor policy is a plebiscite on the question 'Should Australia become a republic?' If that got a Yes vote then they can move to the preferred model but if a No vote then it can go on the back burner for another 50 years of so.

I voted to keep the monarchy in 1999 but would vote No now - because I don't see any relevance for the monarchy in a modern Australia.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Paul Keating is simply trying to sell some books by dragging this up again - I have seen him on TV tell the same story and I don't think it matters one bit. A lot of his arguments (e.g. no one takes us seriously because our Head of State is British) don't stack up and the majority of people obviously disagreed with him when they were asked in the referendum. People can always say "It was the model that lost it" but at the end of the day, the majority said no and there is no need to revisit the issue for some time.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was wondering, as a poster sparked an interest in me, if The Queen or any previous monarch had chosen to place one of their children on the throne of say Australia or New Zealand, how would that have worked? Would they have been solely The monarch of Australia and Elizabeth II would have lost that title?

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I was wondering, as a poster sparked an interest in me, if The Queen or any previous monarch had chosen to place one of their children on the throne of say Australia or New Zealand, how would that have worked? Would they have been solely The monarch of Australia and Elizabeth II would have lost that title?

My guess is that Elizabeth II or whoever would have lost the title - you can't have a King/Queen of Australia and then an Over-King/Queen of Australia or something similar. It probably would have worked out like what happened when a Danish Prince became George I of Greece. The rest of the House of Windsor would lose rights to be King/Queen of Australia like the Danish Royal House did in Greece, but the children and grandchildren etc. of the new monarch of Australia would be styled "Prince/ss of Australia and the United Kingdom" in the same way that members of the Greek Royal Family are "of Greece and Denmark".

 

[Roslyn]

The Queen or King of Australia could not just decide to plonk one of their kids onto our "throne". The Monarch's role is set out in our Constitution, and no-one but the people of Australia can make changes to our Constitution, and it is notoriously difficult to convince them to do that.

Our Monarch is the Monarch for the time being of the UK. We don't have an official "Royal Family"; it is only the Queen, as Monarch, who has any Constituional role here.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only time it could have happened was 1901 when we were becoming a nation. Had Queen Victoria/Edward VII decided then to establish one of their younger descendents e.g. one of Princess Beatrice's children as our monarch it would probably have been accepted.

I doubt if it would have been accepted in the 1920s if the offer had been to make one of the younger sons of George V - by then they had missed the boat to do that.

Now - not possible.

I notice that Mr Keating - who really pushed for the republic - has come up with another call http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-old-lady-to-die/story-e6freuzr-1226223571263. He is entitled to his opinion (and I agree we should become a republic and that there is no need to wait for the Queen to die) but he tone in this article is offensive to Australians in my opinion.

 

[bakaneko]

I have found that Canada and New Zealand have published their own official emblems/logos for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
I want to ask. Does Australia has its own official emblem/logo for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I haven't heard of one.

The Mint will be creating a special coin for the occasion and Qld is planning a one off public holiday I believe.

That is all that I have heard it planned here. With a Republican PM any celebrations would be very low key - they weren't that extensive in 2002 and we had a Monarchist as PM then.

I am not expecting anything much in the way of celebration at all.

Going back 10 years she visited for five days - for CHOGM in Qld. Church services where held on the main celebration weekend in some churches and the GG of the day had some fireworks at the GG's residence - not much at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Howard's OM a 'compliment to Australia' | News.com.au

John Howard - former Australian PM has been made a member of the Order of Merit - one of only 24 members and an award totally in the gift of the monarch.

 

[Roslyn]

I am not expecting anything much in the way of celebration at all.

Neither am I. There'll be a bit of a fuss when Charles & Camilla are here, because the Jubilee is the reason they are coming, but I don't expect anything else, though there might be a special issue 50 cent piece.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Neither am I. There'll be a bit of a fuss when Charles & Camilla are here, because the Jubilee is the reason they are coming, but I don't expect anything else, though there might be a special issue 50 cent piece.

I am under the impression that there will be a special 50c piece and that really will be it.

Maybe some suggestions to churches to include some mention of it on the Queen's Birthday weekend (certainly in CoE churches).

But I am not expecting much.

 

[Madame Royale]

The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust | Prime Minister of Australia

The Government will also recognise the Diamond Jubilee in other ways:

• The Prime Minister will light a Jubilee Beacon on Parliament House on 4 June.
• Australia Post will issue a Jubilee stamp.
• The Royal Mint will issue a Jubilee coin.
• An east-west road in the Parliamentary Zone will be renamed “Queen Elizabeth Terrace”.
• A scholarship will be established focused on women’s leadership.
• A Jubilee essay competition will be staged.

A rather lackluster series of events, but that is not unexpected.

The renaming of the east-west road is a fitting tribute. Other roads in the Parliamentary Zone are already named after Edward VII, Edward VIII and George VI. Infact, I'm surprised it's taken this long.

I watched today's sitting of Parliament and the Prime Minister did make a very lovely speech about the Queen, her role and dedication in serving Australia and naturally, her Diamond Jubilee.