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

[TomBert]

But I do "get it" Iluvbertie. It is quite clear what point you are trying to make. But I do not agree with your premise that supposed sporting allegiances are an important enough reason to change our constitution, especially as the Governor-General can quite easily fulfil these symbolic functions (indeed she already does when travelling overseas). Nobody has come up with a viable alternative to the Queen and the Governor-General that convinces me that such a change would be of any real benefit. So you can go on and on about sporting events all you like; it is of no import to me whatsoever. As to the World Cup, if it was something to do with rugby we are better off without it. After all rugby is just some girly game they play up north; nothing in it for Victoria.

 

[Argyle]

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.

Yes, I agree. I don't blame the teachers per se. It needs to be changed at a curriculum level (in my opinion of course).

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

Well this is something I also contest, I would also ague that we have more to gain from maintaining and reinforcing our ties with Britain than trying to forge new relationships with Asian countries but that is a whole other topic of discussion.

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.

Well I don't have a problem with that at all, I would expect the Queen to support England at a sporting event, she is English. I don't see that as anything of any consequence. You use this as an example of her irrelevance today but it has been like that ever since Australia has existed.

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??

Which ever one they like, all of them or none at all. Like I said, it could be made optional. Does you school remove all references to God, religious classes and ceremonies because some of the students don't believe in the same God as Christians do?

I am the opposite of you Iluvbertie, I was a republican and the more I have learned about the royal family and our history and ties with the monarchy I have gradually become a monarchist! Even when I went through school (which was quite a few years ago ) the Queen was never mentioned and I, like school children today, grew up thinking she was irelevant. Over time I have educated myself about Australian and British history (partially through travel) and now have a better appreciation of the worth of the Queen to Australia.

But I wonder if this is a chicken or the egg situation? Should we get rid of her as our head of state because she is irrelevant to Australians, or is she irrelevant because we have gradually marginalised her in Australian culture?

As for a President who is Australian, it would end up being a political appointment. Who would we have; people like Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, John Howard - all ex-pollies. (or maybe we could have a popular vote then we might end up with Kylie Minogue or Warnie? ). I would rather stick with the Queen.

One other thing (last one I promise ) . We are always being told that everyone wants a republic and we don't care about the monarchy anymore and yet whenever we have a royal visit a lot of people turn out and it gets a lot of media coverage. An online poll about the changes to to Girl Guides pledge was running at 70% against the changes. I really question whether the argument that most people don't respect the Queen and want a republic really reflects the majoruity of opinion at the moment. My feeling is that attitudes towards the monarchy are swinging back in favour of maintaining the status quo.

 

[lizardofoz]

I am centre-left in many ways but a constitutional monarchist to boot.

Personally I think the best way of arguing for our current constitutional arrangements is actually taking the monarchy out of the equation.

Our current precedent is that our Governors-General are appointed from a pool of people that are low risk in the sense that their past isn't marred in politics, they aren't heavy hitters in commerce and therefore have no business connections to be repaid or special interests to serve, or be perceived to serve.

Isn't it desirable that our head of state is drawn from a pool of what you could call life long public servants; in the form of academia, the judiciary or armed services? People who have performed charitable duties before their names were known to the public?

The fact the average Australian doesn't know the name of the Governor General doesn't worry me. In my opinion our head of state serves three purposes; custodian of the constitution, international representative and community worker; in the sense that they foster dialogue and inclusion within our regional, disadvantaged and indigenous communities. That role needs not be pretentious.

Only in our system of government could the Governor of NSW's term be extended three times. As a twenty something New South Welshman the causes our Governor has served many of my friends, my community and our country at large. She has fought or youth mental illness, gay health and aboriginal issues for decades. Unpopular and not glamorous. But for the greater good.

Thankfully, our system of government allows these quiet and purposeful deeds to be undertaken on a daily basis.

Xx

 

[Roslyn]

And the republican in me becomes just that little bit more determined.

'She gave a little fist pump' Queen shows her loyalty as she hails Ashes win over Aussies | Royal | News | Daily Express

 

[Iluvbertie]

And the republican in me becomes just that little bit more determined.

'She gave a little fist pump' Queen shows her loyalty as she hails Ashes win over Aussies | Royal | News | Daily Express

Makes two of us.

 

[wyevale]

Well, we are all wondering why you Aussies don't just sort yourselves out ??? Nobody is stopping you !

For a nation that claims to be 'get up and go', you seem pretty rubbish at 'getting up & going', in this instance !

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well, we are all wondering why you Aussies don't just sort yourselves out ??? Nobody is stopping you !

For a nation that claims to be 'get up and go', you seem pretty rubbish at 'getting up & going', in this instance !

Seriously?! You can't really get up and go when it comes to republicanism you do know that right? Plus what does it matter to you?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well, we are all wondering why you Aussies don't just sort yourselves out ??? Nobody is stopping you !

For a nation that claims to be 'get up and go', you seem pretty rubbish at 'getting up & going', in this instance !

Just because there are a number of people who want a republic and there are various figures out there showing support from about 50% to 65% the republicans can't agree on the form of republic.

We will sort it out - when we are ready - and not in the present reign - that has virtually been agreed by the major parties.

When Charles becomes King he will be King of Australia but by the time he is actually crowned it is possible that he won't be.

 

[Ish]

And the republican in me becomes just that little bit more determined.

'She gave a little fist pump' Queen shows her loyalty as she hails Ashes win over Aussies | Royal | News | Daily Express

I'm neither an Aussie nor a republican, but it's stories like this that make me understand why people from outside of England question their continued relationship with the crown.

 

[muriel]

And the republican in me becomes just that little bit more determined.

'She gave a little fist pump' Queen shows her loyalty as she hails Ashes win over Aussies | Royal | News | Daily Express

Makes two of us.

I'm neither an Aussie nor a republican, but it's stories like this that make me understand why people from outside of England question their continued relationship with the crown.

I am sure the Queen is acutely aware of her responsibilities to both the UK and Australia, and is unlikely to leave herself open to criticism by acting in a matter that may reveal the country she supports in a sport of this type. How many 87 years olds do you see giving a "little fist pump"? IMO, this could just be some old codger trying to get his sound bite into the news.

 

[cepe]

I'm neither an Aussie nor a republican, but it's stories like this that make me understand why people from outside of England question their continued relationship with the crown.

Journalists making a story out of nothing. No guarantee this is true.

 

[Roslyn]

But it could be true, and it should perfectly reasonable for an Englishwoman to be happy her country's team beat another country's team. Whether or not she actually gave a little fist pump, the article once more raises the fact that HM is not just the Queen of the UK, she is also Queen of Australia and our head of State, and our head of state should not be celebrating another country's victory over us in a sporting event. Her role as Queen of so many realms places her in a position of unavoidable conflict over such matters, and it's no more fair on her than it is on us. It's time we got our own head of state.

 

[cepe]

But it could be true, and it should perfectly reasonable for an Englishwoman to be happy her country's team beat another country's team. Whether or not she actually gave a little fist pump, the article once more raises the fact that HM is not just the Queen of the UK, she is also Queen of Australia and our head of State, and our head of state should not be celebrating another country's victory over us in a sporting event. Her role as Queen of so many realms places her in a position of unavoidable conflict over such matters, and it's no more fair on her than it is on us. It's time we got our own head of state.

So you believe it? I don't. she never, never forgets that she is Queen of the 16 realms, in the same way she always supports the Commonwealth overall.

You know that she supports the realms, and you are preferring to believe 2 old boys (actually I think 1 old boy and his mate not disagreeing in front of a journalist) egged on by a journalist.

Of the 2 scenarios, I think mine, based on history, is more likely.

 

[NGalitzine]

But it could be true, and it should perfectly reasonable for an Englishwoman to be happy her country's team beat another country's team. Whether or not she actually gave a little fist pump, the article once more raises the fact that HM is not just the Queen of the UK, she is also Queen of Australia and our head of State, and our head of state should not be celebrating another country's victory over us in a sporting event. Her role as Queen of so many realms places her in a position of unavoidable conflict over such matters, and it's no more fair on her than it is on us. It's time we got our own head of state.

No one in the UK is stopping you guys. You need to figure out what you want and just do it. Frankly I would hope you could find a better reason though than losing The Ashes and getting upset because the Queen of the UK, in the UK, congratulated the winning team while also meeting with both teams.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She has no right to congratulate a team that defeated Australia in anything as she is Queen of Australia.

That is the point - she can't congratulate ONE realm when it defeats any other realm at all - ever as in doing so she is showing bias against another realm.

She has regularly shown this bias - which is natural - but it is also wrong.

She has allowed her grandson to actively campaign AGAINST Australia for the rights for England to host the World Cup - that was wrong and she should never have allowed that unless The Queen of Australia was in favour of Australia losing - which she so clearly is.

 

[NGalitzine]

If the President of Australia was there I would have expected him to also congratulate the winning team, it is just good manners after all.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She has no right to congratulate a team that defeated Australia in anything as she is Queen of Australia.

That is the point - she can't congratulate ONE realm when it defeats any other realm at all - ever as in doing so she is showing bias against another realm.

She has regularly shown this bias - which is natural - but it is also wrong.

She has allowed her grandson to actively campaign AGAINST Australia for the rights for England to host the World Cup - that was wrong and she should never have allowed that unless The Queen of Australia was in favour of Australia losing - which she so clearly is.

If this sports nonsense is getting Australia so riled up (don't quite understand why frankly) then shouldn't there be a greater republican sentiment to push forward this republican outcome? It seems not many people are that bothered. I bet more than half of Australia don't even know about this story.

 

[Roslyn]

No one in the UK is stopping you guys. You need to figure out what you want and just do it. Frankly I would hope you could find a better reason though than losing The Ashes and getting upset because the Queen of the UK, in the UK, congratulated the winning team while also meeting with both teams.

Are you a Canadian with a base in London, or a Londoner with a base in Canada? I suspect the former, because I doubt any Englishman would so underestimate the importance of Ashes cricket.

Sadly it's not up to me, it's up the government, and our government really has more important things to do than deal with this issue and I would not suggest for one moment that they give it priority above more important things. One day the time will be right, and if Australians can wrap their brains around the different models favoured by the different republican factions and reach agreement on the form of a republic for us to have, it will happen. But it's things like this that draw attention to the issue. Over the years the two countries have gradually, and naturally, drifted apart, and this separation has been formalised in various pieces of legislation, but we are still stuck with being in the situation where we cannot give a State Banquet for the UK Monarch when she visits as the UK Head of State, because she is also our Head of State. It's time to make the separation final and permanent.

 

[NGalitzine]

Are you a Canadian with a base in London, or a Londoner with a base in Canada? I suspect the former, because I doubt any Englishman would so underestimate the importance of Ashes cricket.

Sadly it's not up to me, it's up the government, and our government really has more important things to do than deal with this issue and I would not suggest for one moment that they give it priority above more important things. One day the time will be right, and if Australians can wrap their brains around the different models favoured by the different republican factions and reach agreement on the form of a republic for us to have, it will happen. But it's things like this that draw attention to the issue. Over the years the two countries have gradually, and naturally, drifted apart, and this separation has been formalised in various pieces of legislation, but we are still stuck with being in the situation where we cannot give a State Banquet for the UK Monarch when she visits as the UK Head of State, because she is also our Head of State. It's time to make the separation final and permanent.

Well a banquet is not a very good reason either.
To answer your question....English born and bred, with a part time base in Toronto.

 

[Roslyn]

Well a banquet is not a very good reason either.
To answer your question....English born and bred, with a part time base in Toronto.

So, just not a cricket fan?

This issue only arises occasionally these days, and mainly in relation to sporting events, because the Queen really doesn't have any significant role in the running of our country and it's only at times like this that the issue crystalises.

 

[Ish]

She has no right to congratulate a team that defeated Australia in anything as she is Queen of Australia.

That is the point - she can't congratulate ONE realm when it defeats any other realm at all - ever as in doing so she is showing bias against another realm.

I disagree. I think she can congratulate one realm when it defeats another realm at a sporting event, so long as she does so regardless of which realm wins. If she only congratulates England when it wins, but never Australia or any of the other realms that's a problem. Likewise if she openly displays a preference for one realm to win over another (ie fist pumping) that's a problem. But general congratulations isn't showing favouritism, it's showing good manners.

Consider, if Australia had won and she hasn't congratulated them (on the grounds that she couldn't congratulate one realm for defeating another) it would have appeared as a blatant display of preference for England.

She has allowed her grandson to actively campaign AGAINST Australia for the rights for England to host the World Cup - that was wrong and she should never have allowed that unless The Queen of Australia was in favour of Australia losing - which she so clearly is.

I don't know that she allowed that she actually allowed him to do so, or simply that he did so and she didn't stop it.

Unless the Queen actively participates in a campaign I don't think it's fair of us to condemn her for said campaign. That her grandson participated in the campaign is grounds to scrutinize him, but he is not the Queen.

I do agree with the basic point though, and the grandson in question (I believe it's William, right?) was doing a great wrong. The younger royals have a hard time in not showing a preference for England over the other realms - even over the other realms of the UK - and I think this is a great disability to the lasting relationship between the crown and commonwealth. The fault, however, doesn't lay at the Queen's feet but at her grandson's.

At the same time, however, the argument can be made that the Queen is monarch of the 16 realms, but her children do not necessarily belong to a royal family of those realms. I know in Canada measures have been taken to consider members of the BRF to also be members of a Canadian Royal Family, but at the same time they're not necessarily Canadian citizens (it's been debated). I don't know what the situation regarding royal family is in Australia, but if there isn't an official Australian Royal Family, or if British Royals are not considered to be Australian citizens can they be faulted for supporting a country that they are royals and citizens of over a country that they are neither royals nor citizens of?

In other terms, if Australia had a president who had high profile family members that were of a different citizenship, but sometimes represented the president within Australia, would you fault them for campaigning in the interest of their native country? Would you fault the president for his family doing such?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes I would - just as I find fault with any person who is a citizen of Australia supporting any other country at anything.

The Queen is at fault because she is The Queen and the head of her family and is allowing them to show preferences - they are supposed to be neutral in politics and don't vote etc out of loyalty to The Queen so as not to embarass her (words from the monarchy website) but it is fine for them, with her blessing and so support, to show a preference for one realm over another - that is clearly her allowing that to happen and she should be faulted for doing so.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes I would - just as I find fault with any person who is a citizen of Australia supporting any other country at anything.
.

Seriously? So in your eyes for instance, a born English men but lives in Australia and has Australian citizenship would be at fault if he supported England in say the World Cup? Why? People should be allowed who they like. Just like a lad from Manchester should not be forced into supporting Manchester United, if he wishes to support Liverpool. There is no fault in my eyes. I agree with Ish that The Queen can support England as long as she shows equal support to other realms when necessary.


When it comes down to it, cricket especially, nobody seems that bothered frankly. Is this going to be the fuel to ignite the full force of Australian Republicanism, a supposed fist pump? I doubt it.

 

[wbenson]

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the problem. The two teams seem to be independent non-profit entities, not countries, so what's wrong with them having to acquire fans on an open market? She keeps neutral in politics because that touches upon serious issues with the governance of her realms. Does that really apply to cricket just because there are two cricket organizations that choose to label themselves England and Australia? The royal warrant system institutionalizes preference for one organization over another; I'd accept that there are arguments against that as well, but as a public figure it's always going to be obvious if she has a preference towards a particular umbrella maker over another, etc.

But I also live in a place where sports are separate from any real identity issues, so I'll admit that my views could be unrealistic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As the Australian taxpayers actually supported massively the development of many of these cricketers (those that went to the Cricket Academy did so on taxpayers money), the government passed a new law to allow a Pakistani to gain citizenship earlier than normal to be eligible for this series (hasn't been selected mind you) and we fund the development of the grounds etc this is more than just two organisations - there is government involvement in cricket in this country.

Sport is one of the most defining things about Australia - in fact the 'Australian' cricket team was formed before Australia itself and toured and defeated England before we existed as a country.

 

[Skippyboo]

Prince William didn't campaign for England as a prince of the UK but as president of the FA. If he was president of the Australian FA instead, he would have campaign for them.

He also wouldn't have opened the World Cup if he was king, the Governor General would just in the Sydney Olympics and the Vancouver winter ones. The queen could have opened both of them but didn't.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It doesn't matter what title he held - he is the 2nd in line to the throne and shouldn't be campaigning against a realm of his grandmother's - and I would have the same opinion if he had campaigned for Australia against England.

He was, and is President of the FA of ENGLAND - and that is a position he shoudn't hold as it shows a preference over the FAs of Scotland, Wales and Ireland as well as the other realms.

 

[cepe]

Well, we have a more relaxed view about it - for example, Princess Royal always supports the Scottish RFU and the Prince of Wales - well, Wales actually and so on. Anne also represented Britain on the Olympics committee.

Royal support is needed for many sports - why dont the Australians ask them to support them? I'm sure they'd help out.

 

[NGalitzine]

Maybe the Aussies are just a bit upset because they have been having a bit of a bad run in sports recently.....2012 Olympics didnt pan out as expected and there were calls for a government inquiry, and now losing at cricket may have pushed a couple of them over over the edge. It does seem a bit silly, since it is only sport, but then some sports fans can be a bit rabid about their teams.

 

[Ish]

Regarding the Queen and her congratulating one Commonwealth team for beating another Commonwealth team - I still think it would have been inappropriate had she not congratulated the winning team, regardless of who it was. If the Aussies had win and she hadn't congratulated them on the grounds that it was on realm against another there would have been a fuss. If it had been a realm against a non-realm and the non-realm had won and she hadn't congratulated them there would have been a fuss. In congratulating the winner regardless of who it is and her relationship to them or their country, HM is simply being polite, proper, and showing good sportsmanship.

Personally I think that so long as you remember that things like the Queen's honours and who gets invited to fancy events is more the choice of the government than HM, then HM does largely maintain a neutrality. She may privately support one realm over another, but she doesn't seem to do so often in public - most stories of her doing so, like the fist bump, are more than likely concoctions dreamt up by reporters.

The same cannot be said of the extended BRF, particularly in regards to the younger generation, but I put forward again that they themselves don't have the relationship with the commonwealth that HM has.

I can't speak for Australia because I don't know the specifics there, but in Canada while there is an official Canadian Royal Family, that is largely the BRF, but it is debated whether or not they themselves are Canadian citizens. If they are invited to come to Canada it is as a representative of HM, and only direct-line members and their consorts are invited on an official basis. Thus, if Andrew, for example, is not considered a Canadian citizen and is not invited to visit Canada officially, then why should he have to be seen as being neutral when Canada and England play each other?

The relationship between the RF and the Commonwealth is a two way street, and in many ways they're damned if they do and damned if they don't - try to be involved too much and they're seen as being colonialists who want to interfere, but don't try to be involved at all and they're seen as not caring about the other realms. Personally, I think if a royal is not a citizen of a realm other than the UK, is not allowed to be more involved in other realms, and/or is not a part of any official RF of that realm then they shouldn't be required to be neutral in sporting events that involve other realms.