Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 4

State and Territories- reference
‘Still, the powerful upper houses in most Australian State parliaments, a feature which either did not exist or declined very rapidly in Canada, thwarted the state executives from achieving the same relationship with the Commonwealth government that the Canadian provinces eventually achieved with Ottawa.[13]’

It is referenced to an essay by a Toporoski. The relevant reference states:

''Hence the attribution of a provincial identity to the Crown strengthened provincial executives. Although the Australian States started out with this recognition of the Crown as part of their constitutions, the powerful upper houses in most Australian state parliaments, a feature which either did not exist or else declined very rapidly in Canada, prevented those executives from achieving the position of their Canadian counterparts.''

I don’t know why this statement needs a reference to Canada. There are a few of them in the article and they appear a little odd. I don’t think repeating Toporoski’s opinion is particularly useful. And to be honest, it is obscure. I mean, what does it mean? And can we at least replace the word ‘thwarted’? The rephrasing of Toporoski gives the impression that the upper houses set out to obstruct the relationship of the states with the Commonwealth. Granted, that may not be what the editor intended. The ‘state executives’ have direct, unobstructed access to the Commonwealth government. The upper houses have no relationship with the Commonwealth government. --Gazzster (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I may not have written the original edit in a very clear manner; it is a rather complex topic, and Toporoski can often write in a grandiloquent manner. I hope what's there now is more understandable.
 * As for references to Canada; the Canadian provinces are the closest cousins to the Australian states, in terms of their being federated under a crown, and having similar and dissimilar aspects to their relationships with their respective federal governments. It merely makes an interesting, and, I think, pertinent comparison. --G2bambino (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not more understandable, I'm afraid. I still don't understand the issue. Could you explain it to us? And my apprehension at the word 'thwarted' remains. The word Toporoski uses is 'prevented'.--Gazzster (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it has to do with the sovereignty of the Canadian provinces and Australian states; in Canada, the provinces were concieved as subordinates to the federal government, but were recognized later by the Imperial Privy Council to be equal to Ottawa, each with their own distinct crown in parliament; a move that "strengthened provincial executives." In Australia, however, the "strong upper houses" of the state parliaments prevented the states from achieving the same level of equality with Canberra.
 * Though it does seem to have some relevance to the Crown, maybe the reference doesn't belong here and might be more appropriate at the article on the Australian states, or the one on the comparison between Canadian and Australian politics. --G2bambino (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't have much to do with the Crown. It also seems to be a comment on political practice, rather than constitutional arrangements, although exactly what he is getting at is not clear at all. JPD (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, G2. That's certainly clearer. But I disagree with Toporoski. The states do have distinct crowns in parliament. The state executives are equal with Canberra but in distinct fields of governance. Their powers are inviolable, as in the United States federal system. The upper houses of the states do not 'thwart' or 'prevent' such equality. In fact they enhance it. And in any case, the seats of power in the states are the lower houses, as in the United Kingdom. Queensland does not have an upper house. So is Toporoski saying that Queensland is more equal with Canberra than the other states? Unless I still don't understand what he's saying, I have to disagree with him.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Item 2.6 Constitutional Duties
In regards this "The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act also outlines that the Governor-General alone is responsible for summoning and proroguing Parliament" I was under the impression that a special Act was passed in 1953 to address this issue for her Royal Tour the following year, which specifically fixed this anomaly up in the Constitution. I think the Act was called the Royal Powers Act, and it gave her all the powers that the Constitution had only given to the GG.  Petedavo talkcontributions  23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The RPA gives the monarch the statutory powers of the Governor-General whenever he or she is personally presnt in Australia. That is, any powers granted to the G-G by Parliament through legislation or regulation. Of course, the RPA couldn't give the Queen the constitutional powers of the G-G - that takes a referendum. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Today, under the Australian Constitution, legislative power is vested in a Federal Parliament consisting of The Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives. Executive power is vested in The Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as The Queen's representative." from Queen and Commonwealth Royal website  Petedavo talkcontributions  00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was under the mis-aphrehension that what I'm being told is that the head of state and their powers are defined only by the constitutiion. I have since found out I'm wrong and that the Letters Patent actually define the roles and powers and has greater authority than the constitution. So accept my apologies on this one. Petedavo talkcontributions  01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate. If only every Wikipedian could be so honest and courteous!--Gazzster (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's where a copy of the latest ones are Ammendment to Letters Patent releating to the Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Letters Patent Relating to the Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.  Petedavo talkcontributions  01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Govenor General's website mentions that S61 of the Constitution gives the GG alone specific powers, however that doesn't alter any other powers that the sovereign already had, it just limits those in S61 to the GG alone.  Petedavo talkcontributions  02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Monarch description
Technically and legally the description of the Monarch is correct, but personally it does sound rather potty to talk of an "Australian" royal family only to find out they are all identical to that of the British, it could make some people think that we are incapable of being independant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.198.171 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And they are always called the 'British' royal family in Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Always? I find that rather hard to believe. Besides, like the government of Australia can be called the Australian government, what else would one alternately call the royal family of Australia? --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me mate. We never refer to the 'Australian royal family'.--Gazzster (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a good number of monarchists do. Of course, I know of no evidence of any official use of the term "Australian Royal Family," but that doesn't mean none exists, though. And, still, my question regarding common English stands: what else does one alternately call the royal family of Australia? --G2bambino (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an Australian royal family. This is just another example of trying to describe a Commonwealth realm as a minature copy of the UK monarchy. Things are very different here. I have heard them called the British royals, or the royals. Never the 'Australian royals'. In fact, it is rare in the common language of Australia to hear 'Australian' monarchy. --Gazzster (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gazz, but if there are pepople related to the monarch of Australia, who represent the monarch of Australia abroad or in Oz, at the invitation and expense of Australia, then there's an Australian royal family. Things may well be different in Australia than in the UK - I can't see how anyone'd claim otherwise - but, in this matter, there is no dissimilarity between Australia and the UK, or Sweden, Norway, Thailand, Canada, or any other kingdom, for that matter.
 * That said, I don't doubt the rarity of the use of the term. But, is that what we're talking about? --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I reckon, 'Elizabeth II' has taken quite a beating on this & related Australian articles. She's been stripped of her 'Head of State' title & some of her reserve powers have been trimmed. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The only royal who has a role in Australia is Liz. True, Charlie and Will are royals, and will, maybe, succeed as monarchs of Australia. But the royals are part of the UK public life, not Australia's. So in that context it is incongruous to talk about an 'Australian Royal Family.' It's not a matter of being technical;, but of reflecting a real situation.--Gazzster (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me a good number of the Queen's relations have been to Oz multiple times to perform their duties related to Australia, and have represented Australia at events abroad. So, only the Queen has a constitutional role in Australia, but the other royals sure seem to have an official role of their own. Therefore, it's hardly absurd to talk about a royal family of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, none of the other royals have an 'official' role in Australia. If you can cite the term 'Australian Royal Family' from a reputable and verifiable source, go ahead, use it. I'm just tellin' you- for the average Aussie Joe- Australian royal? No such animal! --Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If they don't have an official role to play, then why do they keep undertaking official duties on behalf, and at the expense, of Australia?
 * And, again, I don't dispute the rarity of the use of a term such as "Australian royal"; but I'm still not sure of the relevance of that point; because something's rarely referred to doesn't mean it ceases to exist. I wonder, though, how many Aussie Joes wouldn't describe Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark, as an Australian royal. --G2bambino (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

a) Obviously the royals act on behalf of the sovereign. So they have no role in their own right.

b) Because the fact that in general, the Australian People do not own an 'Australian' royal family is relevant to an article about the Australian monarchy.

c) You are using 'Australian royal' in two senses. Mary is an 'Australian royal' because she is an Australian national. In the second sense, you mean 'Australian royal' to be a member of a British family whose head happens to be monarch of Australia. By the by, Mary is more popular here than any of the royals (Queen excepted), because she is Australian. But that's only a passing comment.--Gazzster (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * a) They act on behalf of the sovereign, therefore their role is to act on behalf of the sovereign.
 * b) Because of a), Australians obviously do have a royal family, which is quite relevant to an article on the Australian monarchy.
 * c) My comment, as well, was a passing one. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully say I think you simplify things too much. You try to draw parallels between the UK monarchy and the Commonwealth realms, thinking that if one thing applies there, it should apply everywhere else. Remember that the Queen's constitutional role is very different to her role in the UK. She is pretty much just a symbol, and it is simplifying, at best, to recreate the Court of Buckingham Palace or Balmoral, with all its paraphernalia in a land whereit is incongruous. If you want to talk about an Australian royal family, how about Australian Palaces, or Australian Burial Ground (we touched on that before), or an Australian Westminster Abbey, or the Corgis of the Australian Monarch?--Gazzster (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you feel so. However, I'd have to counter with the exact same comment; your argument seems to rest on this overly simple concept: few people talk about it, therefore it doesn't exist. I've put forward a number of illustrations of how there is a royal family for Australia, and asked you various questions about your assertions, but so far you've neither refuted nor responded. As for your last points above: I don't understand their relevance, Gazzster. In fact, they rather seem like red herrings; each are disparate matters that could singularly be dealt with on their own, but none actually touch on the topic at hand.
 * Unless you can explain how a group of people related to the monarch of Australia, who officially represent the monarch of Australia, at the direction of the Australian ministry, and who are funded by Australians when doing so, are not the royal family of Australia, then I fear this discussion has reached its endpoint. --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A number of illustrations? I don't recall any?

Questions? I have answered them all.

On the contrary, the onus is on you to cite, not merely argue from your own knowledge, that there is such a thing as an 'Australian Royal Family.' I have already said, if you can cite a reputable and verifiable source, use the term.--Gazzster (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you've completely avoided everything I've said. --G2bambino (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I know what you are saying. You are saying that the family of the monarch of the UK must also be the family of the monarch of Australia, since the monarch of one is monarch of the other.But if you say, for example, the British Royal Family, you are contextualising the concept of her family. You are almost making it a brand or a corporation. That's fine, for Britain, because the royals a part of the public life of the UK. In other words, it is a royal family acknowledged by the British People. The British People own them, despite the fact they are frequently indifferent to them or ashamed of them. But in Australia it is very different. There is no brand or corporation called the 'Australian Royal Family'. They have no significance whatsoever in Australia. Australia does not 'own' them. It does not claim them. It is a subtle point, but obvious to us (I mean Australians). And that is possibly why you have difficulty grasping the concept. I'll repeat- respectfully, because you are a respectable editor- concepts of monarchy in the UK cannot be transposed without interpretation to other Commonwealth realms.--Gazzster (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have not fully grasped what I'm saying, it seems. Regardless, what you state above is all personal opinion, Gazz. Prove that Australia does not "own" the family of its monarch. I made a relatively simple request of you, and as of yet it remains ignored. Again: please explain how a group of people related to the monarch of Australia, who officially represent the monarch of Australia in Australia and abroad, at the direction of the Australian ministry, and who are funded by Australians when doing so, are not the royal family of Australia. Note: I'm not arguing there is any official recognition of an Australian royal family, only that the concept of a royal family for Australia exists, as it does for evey other kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've ommitted the reference to 'Australian' and I'm happy. But I haven't been ignoring your argument. In fact, I just finished explaining my objection. As regards personal opinion: I suppose I'm asking you to trust that what I say represents what Australians believe. Perhaps it's not fair that I do that. But my opinion is not the issue, is it? As I've said before, if you are going to invent a term, namely, 'Australian Royal Family', the onus here is on you to reference that term. Making inferences like 'what else should we call them?' represents  your personal opinion. In the interests of fairness, I ran a Google search on 'Australian Royal Family'. In the first four pages I have read it occurs twice. The first time it is used on a site that says there is no Australian Royal Family; the second time in a site that refers to an Indigenous family. Now while Google is not an ultimate reference it does express the wider opinion. Lots of terms tend to get invented on Wikipedia, like Australian Royal Family. I find that disturbing.--Gazzster (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no australian Royal family (bar one - HRH QEII), as the Queen (as Queen of Australia) has not created any Australian Titles for her family, neither does the 1953 Royal Titles Act of the UK. The http://www.royal.gov.uk website takes a bit of digging thru, but the only member of the Royal family with an Australian Title is the Queen The Queens titles in Australia. Try this one: History of the Australian Monarchy  Petedavo talkcontributions  01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody good point.--Gazzster (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Titles don't make a royal family; not even in the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G2, you say in your last reversion that my edit was not 'appropriate'. But you don't explain why. I, on the other hand, noted that the reference to an 'Australian Royal Family' is uncited, and is 'probably invented'. Please address that if you wish to challenge an edit.--Gazzster (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. You have left out a reference to 'Australian' Royal Family, but why did you feel you couldn't leave my simple edit as it stood?--Gazzster (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) :I don't understand your objections, Gazzster, besides your, as of yet, unproven assertions that Australia "has no royal family." To appease you, I'll say the "Australian" qualifier is perhaps not necessary, but there is no reason what-so-ever for downright removal of the fact that nobody in the royal family but the Queen has any constitutional role in Australia. As a relatively long-standing presence in the article, I think it's up to you to explain why it should be removed. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have reviewed that more carefully; this has stemmed from the fact I thought you completely deleted all the previous wording, not realising the words "Royal Family" were kept. My apologies.
 * Now, however, I wonder why you feel there should be no link anywhere, unless your now claiming Australia has a royal family but not one shared with other countries as the monarch is. --G2bambino (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like I'm harping on about this thing, but as the problem's likely to come up again, bear with me. Now me breaking the link was an accident, not intended. But looking at it, I do have some objection. This is where the link takes us:

'As with the sovereign, a single royal family is shared by the Commonwealth realms. Though there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family,[18] the Royal Family is loosely defined as the extended family of the monarch. Individual countries, however, do set some official guidelines on Royal Family composition, typically core, or senior, members; Canada and the United Kingdom, for example.[19] Though the Royal Family is shared amongst the Commonwealth realms, the group is most commonly referred to as the "British Royal Family," for reasons historical, political, and of convenience; in Canada, however, they are, in a more official capacity, called the Canadian Royal Family.' (from Commonwealth realm)

I saw a few problems here. Among them:

1) Footnote 19 is a reference to Canada. So the phrase 'individual countries...do set official guidelines' is entirely unsourced as regards other non-UK realms, such as Australia and New Zealand.

2) This paragraph acknowledges (as you do now) that the term used is 'British Royal Family'. This seems to agree with my original edit.

Now without intending to be insulting, can I say that you seem to be drawing parrallels between Canada as a sort of model Commonwealth realm and other realms. If one thing applies in Canada, it must apply elsewhere. Thus we find in this article, Commonwealth realm and related articles, general statements like the one in question. And the only references tend to relevant to Canada alone. Can I ask you to be careful about making inferences for all the realms? --Gazzster (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't there some info (explaination notes or something) from the Australia Act with respect to the "Queen of Australia"? FWIW prehaps in application to Australia, there is no "Royal Family" - just the Queen (or King) of Australia?????  Methinks it's time for some sources to support the article in any case.  Shot info (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which one, mate? 1901 or 1986? The 1901 Act doesn't talk about a Royal Family at all.--Gazzster (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the latter, however any source would be acceptable. Shot info (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a squiz at both, and haven't found any reference to a royal family. I suppose there might be an annotation I'm not aware of. But you wouldn't expect the royal family to be mentioned in the Constitution Act. I'm pretty sure only the sovereign is referred to. I've had another thought though. The UK Parliament grants an annuity to some of the royals. Our government only pays when a royal acts in an official capacity for the Queen of Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the mistake you're both making is in looking exclusively at law to find a royal family. This, of course, will result in nothing as royal families are not solely defined by law, and certainly not in Australia, as is the case elsewhere. I believe the article Royal family explains the different meanings and situations adequately.
 * As for the paragraphs you highlight from Commonwealth realm, Gazzster: I'll agree that the section is rather limited at the moment. I created it some time ago to solve a larger issue. It has since been somewhat neglected. I think, though, that its contents should be discussed at Talk:Commonwealth realm rather than here. --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to look at the Royal family 'exclusively at law'. I think my objections have been pretty clear. I'd be happy to discuss things at Talk:Commonwealth realm. --Gazzster (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here, Gazz's objection (which again, on the basis of Australian public opinion, anecdotal evidence etc, I support) is that there is no Australian royal family - as a concept. The notion, legally defined or no, does not exist in the mind of Australians.  If it did, there would be some sort of specific written citation to support it.  But Australians simply don't talk or think about their monarch this way.  I can't see how it's fair that Gazz be asked to prove that something doesn't exist.  Verifiability is always the criterion, and it is ipso facto easier to verifiably prove that something exists than it doesn't. Slac speak up! 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the both of you are trying to prove something doesn't exist because of what Australians apparantly don't think. Whether or not they think about a royal family for Australia, it is there. Willful denial or general ignorance doesn't change this. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * G2, I don't think that's the point. Whether or not such a concept can be described, it is not really relevant, as it is not a concept that people use. Similarly, while "Australian royal family" is unambiguously and unlikely to be misunderstood, it is not a normal thing to talk of, and Wikipedia should not be creating that sort of terminology. The thing that "is there" is the family of the Queen, commonly understood as the British Royal Family. Apart from the constitutionaly role of the Queen, noone has distinguished the Royal Family as they relate to Australia from the same family as they more naturally relate to Britain. Your arguments basically say that this could be done, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it first. JPD (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be the point to Gazzster and Lacrimosus. And, opposite to being non-relevant, describing the concept is the crux of this entire discussion. The family of the Queen of Australia may well be most often thought of, referred to, seen as, what have you, the "British Royal Family," but the point remains that the family of the Queen of Australia must be the royal family of Australia, Australia's royal family, the Australian royal family, however you want to word it. To prove that the royal family does indeed have a distinct relation to Australia, need I list every one of the numerous duties that members of the Royal Family have undertaken at the request of, and cost to, the Australian government over the last seven decades? --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A concept is an abstraction. It doesn't exist unless someone thinks about. You want to demonstrate that such a concept could in some sense exist, by pointing out the fact that royals (sometimes) act on behalf of the Queen of Australia. This concept becomes relevant to us when it is used and discussed widely outside Wikipedia. Until then, we talk about the fact that royals have the relationship with Australia that they do using concepts and language that is already in existence. I don't think there has been any objection to the phrase "the royal family", simply the way of painting it as something to be distinguished from the British royal family. Creation of the list you speak of may be enlightening for you and us, but is hardly relevant to the question of which wording to use. JPD (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A royal family is, in of itself, a concept; the Wikipedia article Royal family says as much. Based on the description of that concept, it's simple logic to state that the family of the Queen of Australia is the royal family of Australia (the list I mention above is simply icing on the cake, serving to illustrate the existence of that which some here say doesn't exist), though it is commonly referred to by Australians as the "British Royal Family." But, the common name does not alter the concept, nor does the popularity of the concept outside of Wikipedia correlate to its inclusion or exclusion from the encyclopaedia; there are many obscure topics and theories covered here. All the level of recognition can do is dictate the amount of space dedicated to the subject, which I think is presently reflective.
 * So, it is not illogical to refer to the royal family for Australia as the Australian royal family, while still being able to acknowledge that it is commonly dubbed the "British Royal Family" by Australians.
 * Though I'd prefer the qualifier of "Australian" to be returned to where it was, or something equivalent, if only to distinguish the family from, say, the Norwegian or Canadian royal families, I don't have an issue with the present wording. --G2bambino (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be technically correct to talk of the "Australian Royal Family", but it grates. It's like saying that English schoolgirls play "field hockey" so as to distinguish the game from other sorts of hockey. A Canadian might find the distinction useful, but to English eyes it needs no qualification. The idea of young things in gym slips playing ice hockey would render any reader helpless and giggling. The Royal Family is seen in Australia as British, if not English, and describing Australia as a kingdom just doesn't sound right. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. As JPD has concisely pointed out, unless there is some reference somewhere to "The Australian Royal Family", wikipedia writing about it is a straight-out violation of WP:NOR. It's not enough to say that something should exist as a concept - which is basically what you're maintaing, G2 - there needs to be some external reference to it that proves that it does. Otherwise we here in Wikipedia are essentially creating the concept, something we're not allowed to do. Slac speak up! 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are references that prove it does; as I said, anyone, really, could compile a slew of evidence from Hansard, the press, ministerial archives, etc., etc., that demonstrates there is a royal family for Australia. It just doesn't seem necessary, as the article already mentions the royal family and part of its role in the country. The only thing that ever seemed to cause issue was the application of the adjective "Australian." Though, so far, no good reason has really been given not to describe the group within an Australian context as the "Australian royal family," "royal family of Australia," "royal family for Australia," or some other syntaxically acceptable variant, the offending term has been removed. --G2bambino (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think those terms should be omitted because they offend someone. Using Australian Royal Family, isn't going to bring the world to an end. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with offensiveness. It's jsut that Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing terminology. Why does this matter at all? I don't think anyone is saying that there is no royal family connected with Australia, but using non-standard terminology is usually either consciously or unconsciously pushing an subtly unusual view on the subject. In this particular case, this is definitely true, since in general when we are entirely within an Australian or British context it is more natural to simply say "royal family". Anything more than this reads like it is trying to make a point that on the whole just isn't otherwise made or even thought about. Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of point. JPD (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Royal Family? That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Like he said. G2, if you can provide a reference for 'Australian Royal Family' why not use it? We're supposed to after all. If you don't because you think it's obvious- well, that's a personal judgement on a source, isn't it? But we seem to have come to a practical agreement and that's good.--Gazzster (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)