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

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


Jan 17, 2004
Queen Elizabeth is also Queen of Australia, our Head of State.
As she spends most of her time in the UK, her representative here is His Excellency The Governor General. He represents Australia as a whole in the absence of Queen Elizabeth. But each of our 5 States (Vctoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) also have a Vice Regal representative known as the Governor - who each represent the Queen in their own State. They each have a "Vice Regal Residence" which is also where the Queen stays when she is in the country. The pictures above show the Vice Regal Residence of Victoria, which is said to be the most palace like home is Australia.
And is by far the most beautiful of all the 6 residences in Australia.
Other countries in the Commonwealth have similar homes.

The pic below is an aerial view of Government House, Melbourne


  • GovHouse1.gif
    11.4 KB · Views: 3,823
  • GovHouse6.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 4,068
  • GovHouse7.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 3,772
  • GovHouse9.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 3,765
  • GovHouse10.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 626
  • GovHouse8.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 3,744
  • GovHouse13.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 3,793
Last edited by a moderator:
;) And her residence in Sydney


  • GovHouseNSW.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 3,624
;) Hi

Yes, most of the Vice-Regal residences have tours at various times.

Here is a pic of the residence in Tasmania


  • Tas.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 3,727
HM The Queen and Australia; Residences; Gov General

This is an old press release from the Prime Ministers website

I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh will visit Australia in March next year.

The main focus of the visit will be the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, where it is planned that Her Majesty will attend the Opening Ceremony on the evening of Wednesday 15 March. Her Majesty has indicated that she would be delighted to accept our invitation to officially open the Games.

Further details of the visit will be released closer to the time.

I know that all Australians will welcome Her Majesty and His Royal Highness with the warmth for which they are renowned.

07 May 2005
Last edited by a moderator:
This is most exciting and I cannot wait to once again have my Gracious Sovereign lady on our southern shores.

Thankyou for providing the statemnt from the PM's office Aussie Princess.

This will be a lovely and wonderful visit of Her Most Gracious Majesty to Australia like the recent visit to Canada, it was really wonderful, everybody gave their most love, wlecome and respect for Her Majesty on everywhere she visited. And i think this is really a wonderful visit of Her Majesty to Australia too especially on this great occasion when Her Majesty will open the Commonwelath Games.I would love too see Her Majesty and The Duke of Edinburgh here really much.
Well it's an old statement, from May, but it was all I could find. I'll certainly be keeping an eye out for more news, as I really want to go and see her when she's here. I got Majesty magazine yesterday, and it had her trip to Canada, it was a great article and sounded like the trip was a great success!
I hope it is as good here!:D
I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be an excellent Royal visit here too. Perhaps the only thing might be, that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, may not be as prominently in the public eye due to the games, or whatever else is going on at the same time, but I doubt that our Sovereign and Her Majesties' Consort shall be over-shadowed.
I am sure Her Majesty & His Royal Highness shall be met with the respect and effection of our nation and of course, my wonderful hometown of Melbourne.

There is no disguising the fact that Her Majesty has openly stated that Australia shall one day embrace new terms of government under a Federal Republic within the Commonwealth, but its a matter of when, how and that it should be executed in a way that best supports Australia & her people's best interests.

Her Majesty the Queen has also remained, in her effections for this wide, red land (if I may quote HM here) "constant, sure and true", and that she shall continue to serve this nation with the utmost devotion as she has done over the past 53 years.

As well as being Queen of Engalnd, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, the Queen believes her role as Sovereign Lady of the Commonwealth of Nations to be the biggest and most important duty she holds.

Each Commonwealth Dominion holds a very special place within in her heart, and I have nothing but loving and loyal effections for my most gracious Monarch.


P.S. It must look kind of weird that my usernme is Margrethe "Daisy" just happens to be another dear favourite of mine.
Last edited:
Isn't she wonderful. I will be very sad if this country ever becomes a republic:(
Aussie Princess, we ought not dwell on it. The republicans have left themselves weaker and weaker with each question put to the Australian public. The traitors failed in their aim to establish a republic in Australia by 2001, and have continued to fail in getting a government elected which would address the issue. Her Majesty said she's remain Queen of Australia for as long as Her Australian people wished her to. When asked if they/we'd like to dispense with the monarchy in Australia, it was answered with a resounding 'NO'.

The republicans can't remove the monarchy without deleting the constitution, which is a Crown document, and as soon as civics and citizenship is taught properly in schools, the public shall realise what a terrible idea that would be.
1. They do not have to 'delete' the constitution. They have to change a couple of clauses. That has happened 8 times since Federation. To get it passed it will need a majority of people in a majority of states - that has only happenede when both sides of politics agree on the change. At the moment we have a monarchist PM but there are many within the Liberal Party, including the deputy, who are republican. I personally believe that the next push will to be a republic by the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli in 2015. That I believe will happen for a few reasons - Johnny will be gone and so the staunchest monarchist in the government will be gone. There will be bipartisan support for the republic and the model put to the people. There will be a whole generation of kids who have been taught the Civics and Citizenship syllabi spelt out by the state Labor governments, with the strong anti-British stance and the present Queen will be probably deceased with Charles as King.

2. As the state governments control the content of education in our schools and they are all Labor governments guess what slant Civics and Citizenship has been taking for the last 7 - 8 years since its inception. In addition something like 80% of teachers are Labor supporters.

3. From personal knowledge - when the NSW History syllabus was issued, incorporating Civics and Citizenship on December 4 1998 for implementation the following January- (I was at the meeting where it was issued) the person from the Board of Studies was asked what would happen if the Liberal/Nationals won the upcoming state election. His response was that the syllabus we had just been issued would be scrapped immediately. As we haven't had a change in government since the syllabus is basically the same - a strong Labor bias - e.g. the original syllabus was written before the Republican Referendum was held - the assumption was that it would be a Yes vote and even all the text books that came out assumed that. The view still is that the Liberals will change the syllabus but that won't change the tone of teaching in our schools.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. You'll find many constitutional experts (many former High or Supreme Court Justices), claim otherwise. The document hinges on the function of one undissolvable Federation of States 'Under the Crown'. They argue that it is actually impossible to remove the sections mentioning the Crown, Queen and Governor-General, without making the Australian Constitution null and void. So there goes that point.

2. In recent weeks, our attention has been brought to the bias being passed as fact in primary and secondary education. While the state governments do control educational content, they have an obligation to prevent teachers from controlling the opinions of the students in their care by either omitting information they personally dosagree with, or by emphasising the information they personally feel strongly about. Having recently been educated in an independant Victorian Secondary College, I can use that example: Rather than teaching students in my English and History classes that Australia has a Queen and Governor General as Sovereign and Head of State, statements were made by these (supposedly neutral educators), that 'we shouldn't have a pommy Queen and killer Governor-General'.
Just because the state governments seem to ignore such practices, doesn't mean it's right to do so.

3. Nice bit of information. Highlights my above point beautifully. Teaching shouldn't have a 'tone'. Teaching is expected to be the emparting of knowledge, as a student, for every biased opinion that was rammed down my throught, I felt cheated of an education. I'm not trying to sound bitter, please don't accept it in that manner. I'm just trying to show that I was accutely aware it was happening. Not brainwashing, I'm not really one to exaggerate, but certainly having our opinions formed for us, instead of giving us enough information to form our own.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saying what you think...

Von Schlesian said:
The traitors failed in their aim to establish a republic in Australia by 2001.
No holding back here, Von Schlesian!

Warren you know very well that I'm not someone to do things by halves! I'd consider anyone who moved to remove the person from office (or their office all-together), to whom they'd sworn an oath, an act of treason/purjery.
It seems to me that there are so many people in favour of a republic, I wonder how the vote was no. it's like people seem to dislike John Howard, and I think well why did he get voted in then? maybe it's just the people I know!
Some people said that people didn't understand the 'model' and voted no. Something about the president being nominated by the PM...I don't really know, I didn't take much notice then, but if we vote on it again, now I am eligable, I will definely vote to keep our monarchy!
1. Just as many if not more former High Court Judges and Constitutional Lawyers (my father included - he studied Constitutional law at Sydney Uni and taught it for awhile at Charles Sturt uni as well although his main practice was criminal law and main teaching subject was Income Tax law - I will go with their interpretation until the High Court rules otherwise) etc say that there is not problem with changing the Constitution through a simple referendum since the Australia Act in 1984 removed all of the ties to Britain except the Queen. That act was passed through both our parliament and the British parliament, affectively amending our Constitution (which was an act of British parliament in the first place) to allow us to totally control the wording and changes.

2. I agree with your points but in fact teachers are predominantly Labor supporters and they do teach their views. At my Independent High School there are two monarchists among a staff of over 70 and that is a higher rate than in many schools. In the state schools in which I taught I was the only monarchist. Personally I make my bias known to my students and discuss what that means for their interpretation of my teaching. I also try to encourage them to disagree with me but I do know that some find that confronting as they are told by other teachers that the teacher knows everything and to accept their word as gospel (garbage I say but...).

3. It is annoying but the states do control the content and the teachers are leftwing Labor supporters so that is the view that is being taught.

Since we have had to teach Civics and Citizenship in NSW we have been having the students run an election/referendum on the republic vote using the wording of the actual vote - this is an exercise in the system and in the arguements for and against the republic. We even have the parents complete postal votes by sending home ballot papers and having Mum or Dad fill it in and the student brings it back. The Electoral Commission have given us the figures for the actual referendum for the electorates covered by the school - between 55% and 68% in favour. The votes we are getting from the kids and their parents has steadily increased from 61% the first year we did it to over 78% this year. This would indicate a strong support for the idea of a republic in this local area (which is predominantly Labor - local members get over 75% of the Primary vote). The interesting thing is the number of parents that have told me that they have changed their minds since '99 from No to Yes even for that model although they would prefer a direct election one.

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!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Australia is now an autonomous country, the text of the Constitution is now regarded as being totally separated from the contents in the original Act. Only the Australian populace can amend the Constitution, by referendum. Even if the UK Parliament were to rescind the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900", it would have no effect on Australia.

Actually, it was the Australian Act of 1986 (After having been agreed upon to by His Excellency the Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen in 1985 & signed By Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, that the Act came into effect on 2 March, 1986) that disengaged all legal and political ties with the United Kingdom. This established Australia as a totally seperate sovereign nation. We however remain allied to the United Kingdom only by the fact that we happen to share the same Monarch, along with 15 other
Commonwealth Realms.

About Succession

The Act of Settlement of 1701, originally an act of Parliment of the United Kingdom, is held to be the law outlining the line of succession for the Australian Crown, although the Act has never been formally introduced into the Australian Governing system.

This Act states that only Protestant descendants of Her Royal Highness the Sophia, Electress of Hanover (Born Princess Palatine of Rhine) who have not, in addition, married a member of the Catholic faith, can succeed the duties of sovereignty.

Last edited:
I know this isn't Her Majesty, but it's as close as it comes when Her Majestys doesn't reside with us in Australia:

For those unfamiliar with the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, (he's the one in uniform on the right, I am shaking his hand in the first photograph, and having a chat with His Excellency in the second photo.

I was most fortunate to be able to be re-aquainted with His Excellency when Mrs Jeffrey remembered me from another occasion.
Last edited:
This established Australia as a totally seperate sovereign nation

The Empire has all but gone. All the old ways, the old values, the traditions and the very structure of society - all broken. It makes one wonder where we are headed.
Her Majesty holds the residences in trust, the same as she does with the United Kingdom palaces are castles. They are hers, but only in the name of the crown.
Australian said:
Most probably Warren :)

You know i never even knew that the Queen had residences in every state here. They are used by the Governor-General arnt they?

The GG has TWO official residences - Yarralumla in Canberra and Admiralty House in Sydney.

If the GG officially visits other states he/she (we have never had a she but...) they would stay at the local government house which is the official home of the state governor.

They may occasionally have to stay elsewhere depending who else is in town - e.g. next year for the Commonwealth Games, the Queen and Prince Philip will no doubt be staying at Government House in Melbourne, along with the state governor. If the GG is also attending the games he may stay there or somewhere else.
BeatrixFan said:
The Empire has all but gone. All the old ways, the old values, the traditions and the very structure of society - all broken. It makes one wonder where we are headed.
The Empire may be gone, but thankfully the Commonwealth continues to grow.
I didnt know that Australia has this European-like palaces..really beautiful and impressing..
HM the Queens official residence in Melbourne reminds me greatly of QV beloved Osbourne, Isle of Wight.

I think it a gorgeous residence!

From Yahoo! News:

SYDNEY (AFP) - As Australia prepares to host the Commonwealth Games next week, the country's oldest parliament has voted to distance its ties to its British colonial past by abolishing its pledge of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

New South Wales state parliament voted late Tuesday to abolish the oath of allegiance to the British monarch in favour of pledge of loyalty to "Australia and to the people of New South Wales".

For all of you Aussies, do you all think this will be approved by Marie Bashir? And if so, could you Australians (and others with insight) see this coming also in other states in the future?
OK now this is just my opinion but hopefully, it will happen in other Australian states. Maybe its just a matter of time in regards to when and if it happens. But i do hope it happens, i dont mean to come of looking disrespectful of the monarchy but I see no reason why a pledge of loyalty should be made to the British royal family these days and i would fully support a pledge to Australia and its people instead of to a foreign country. However- the timing is a bit disrespectful to HM
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom