Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 6

Dominion
Of course, unlike Canada, Australia was never classified as a Dominion in any official capacity until 1907. However, the Buckingham Palace website states: "The modern Commonwealth of Australia dates from 1901. In January of that year the former British colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania joined under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, which became an independent dominion of the British Empire." Perhaps they are being slightly misleading by classifying the Commonwealth between 1901 and 1931 as "independent," but Dominion seems to apply as a Dominion, in this context, is described as "an autonomous community of the British Empire and British Commonwealth, prior to 1948." So, Australia pre-1907 could be classified as a having fit the characteristics of a Dominion, but was not officially recognised as such until the Imperial Conference of that year. --G2bambino (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PS - Why do you ask, Gazzster, "what reference?" It would be the one immediately following the statement, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see how a Dominion is a dominion before the name is even used. But actually, the tern 'dominion' is another word for colony. In 1907 at a Colonial Conference Britain decided to distinguish the 'great colonies' (Aus, Can, Cape Colony, Natal, NZ, Transval) with the name 'dominion' 'because that term confused their status with that of crown (coloured) colonies lacking self-government.' The edit I made uses both terms to avoid all ambiguity. I don't understand why you have to repeatedly remove term one and not the other.--Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple: the source uses one term and not the other. I also had a look at the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and could find no reference to the Commonwealth as a "self-governing colony." Could you perhaps guide me to the relevant clause? --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here: 'The Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes' . of that Act.'
 * I see it now, thank you. It does, however, say the Commonwealth is to be considered a self-governing colony only for the purpose of the Colonial Boundaries Act, and I will still assert that "Dominion" and "self-govering colony" are essentially synonyms, and the Buck House source does still say Australia became a dominion in 1901, but, I will rest on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we've examined it long enough. I won't insist on 'self-governing colony'. The reference to 1907 is enough.--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sequence of events, it seems that at first only Canada was perceived of as a Dominion, and had a unique quasi-independent status within the empire for more than 30 years before it was decided to apply a similar set-up to Australia, at which time a new term, Commonwealth, was devised for the new entity. Had this gone on a new term would have had to be found for each new realm, so perhaps it was decided that all, after all were Dominions since they were all modelled on Canada, and the term retrospectively applied to Australia. Typical British way of doing things - make it up as you go along and then pretend it was all planned. TharkunColl (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the British needed a way of distinguishing the 'great colonies', with self-government, from other colonies directly ruled. It wasn't the best move, since the constitutions of all the dominions were different. And the term had nothing to do with having a semi-independent status, since the application of dominion predates the Balfour Declaration by almost three decades. Fascinating stuff (I think anyway lol) For all I know there is a mighty collective snore from the editors!--Gazzster (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It may have been something to do with the granting of self-rule to New Zealand in - I believe - 1907. That was just a single colony and no federation took place, merely a change in the competence of its administration. Perhaps it was then that the term Dominion was chosen as a general term, rather than being specific to Canada. And on a related note, doesn't the Australian Constitution state that New Zealand has the right to join the Australian Commonwealth at any time it chooses? This is presumably still in force. TharkunColl (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. NZ still has an open invitation. Of course it's unlikely to be accepted. And we're quite happy for our brethren across the Tasman to enjoy their independence!--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really correct to say that under the Australian Constitution New Zealand has the "right" or even "an invitation" to join the Commonwealth of Australia. A "right" would imply that NZ can join regardless of the Australian attitude to this -- and this simply isn't the case. During the initial stages of planning for federation, the possibility of NZ joining was a real one. But by the time the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was enacted by the Westminster Parliament in 1900, the possibility of NZ joining the Commonwealth of Australia as an original state was no longer realistic. But since NZ was right next door and had a relatively small population it was still possible that NZ (along with other nearby British possessions such as some of the islands in the Western Pacific) would wish to join at a future date. The preamble reflects this by stating: "Whereas the people of [the current Australian states] have agreed to unite ... and whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen". This just states the political reality of the time that (in the eyes of the British Government) it was "expedient" (i.e. made sense) for other nearby British colonies to jump on the federation bandwagon. One large British colony would have been more viable than several small ones. NZ does, however, get explicit mention in one of the covering clauses. The definition of "the states" in covering clause 6 includes reference to NZ. If you read this carefully it does not say that NZ *is* a state of the Commonwealth or even that it *has the right to become* a state. Rather it simply says that if it did join then it would be a state for the purposes of the Australian Constitution. Since it didn't join at the time of Federation the only possibility of NZ joining is now under Chapter VI of the Constitution which deals with the admission or establishment of new states. If NZ wanted to join, it would -- along with anyone else who wanted to join -- have to do so according to the provisions of s 121 which states that "The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent or representation in either House of Parliament, as it thinks fit". That's not a right. It's entirely up to the Australian Parliament whether NZ -- or anyone else for that matter -- can join. But again, the chances of NZ joining now are of course almost non-existent.Apodeictic (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Defender of the Faith (DF)
''In 1973 the Parliament of Australia enacted a new Royal Styles and Titles Act, establishing the Queen's present Australian title. This Act removed specific reference to the United Kingdom as well as reference to the sovereign as "Defender of the Faith", a title which has been borne by all English – and subsequently British – monarchs since 1521 when Pope Leo X granted the title to Henry VIII.''
 * Just a thought about the highlighted words. The current DF title borne by the UK monarch is not the same one as that conferred by Leo X.  He excommunicated Henry VIII and revoked the title, and the English Parliament re-conferred a title of the same name.  The original title was about defence of the Catholic faith; the new title was about defence of the Church of England.  The wording makes it appear that the Leo-conferred title is still the one borne by UK monarchs, when that is not the case.  Any thoughts about alternative wording?  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right of course. It was a title conferred by Parliament. Delete everything after 'Defender of the Faith.'--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gazzster. Done.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Those words were originally mine and I have no objection to them going for the sake of concision (people can read the article fidei defensor if they're interested in the meaning and history of the title) but the suggestion that they need to go because they were wrong or misleading needs to be addressed. Nowhere did those words say or even imply that the Queen of the UK (or Canada or NZ for that mater) continues to hold that title by papal warrant. Any reasonable reading of the sentence says two things: (1) In 1521 Pope Leo conferred the title "fidei defensor" on Henry VIII and (2) Since 1521 every reigning English (and from 1707 British) monarch has borne the title "fidei defensor". Those words cannot reasonably be read to say anything about the basis upon which the sovereign continues to bear that title. As you correctly point out, it is by Act of Parliament.


 * A lot could be said in response to your claim about Pope Leo's title applying to the "Catholic" faith as opposed to the current title conferred by Parliament applying to the "Church of England" but I'll limit myself to one brief remark here. The situation is a little bit more complicated than you suggest since at the heart of the divide between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation is a dispute about what it means to be truly "catholic" (and who is a "catholic"). The Church of England claims to be "catholic" and that the split from Rome was an affirmation rather than a denial of the Catholic Faith. In any event I'm sure we're all agreed that this isn't something we need to spend our time debating here in an article on the Australian monarchy :-) Apodeictic (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slimming Down
Lots of stuff is repeated in other places, often several times. I'd like to slim it down, without deleting cited material. And there's a lot of uncited material too.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Slim away, Gazz. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to delete the paragraph, 'Continuance of the Personal Union' [] The subject matter is dealt with in 'Succession', 'Development' and other sections.--Gazzster (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

International and domestic aspects
I respectfully disagree with some of the recent changes here. Originally the paragraph was structured to reflect the fact that our understandings of the role of the Crown among the realms developed in a different era and with the changes to the monarchy that have taken place in more recent years there is now uncertainty. That's gone out the window as editors have seen fit to imply certainties where there are none.

The reference to the "traditional" understanding of the Crown was to that at the height of the Empire and at the inception of the nascent Commonwealth. That is to be contrasted with the present situation where we now have a distinct monarchy in each of the realms. Two implications of the "traditional" understanding were mentioned – (1) the impossibility of receiving ambassadors (and the practice of receiving High Commissioners instead) and (2) the impossibility of war with another territory of the Crown – followed by a statement that the development of a distinct Australian monarchy has raised doubts about the continued vitality of these understandings.

Could the Queen of Australia receive an Ambassador from the Queen of NZ (as opposed to the Queen's Government in Australia receiving a High Commissioner from the Queen's Government in NZ)? Or could the Queen of Australia declare war on the Queen of NZ? Well under the traditional understanding the answer was a clear "no". Now the answer is (legally speaking) "we don't really know". There are other areas (such as citizenship) where the law has had to catch up with the reality of a distinct monarchy in each of the various realms. But it would be a mistake to think that this then automatically applies to the case of international relations (eg ambassadors and war). This is a classic case of political necessities being the drivers of changes in the way we legally conceptualise the Crown. Since there's no politcial necessity in thse respects (NZ hasn't tried to send an ambassador as opposed to a high commisioner or hasn't yet declared war on Australia!) there's been no need to reconceptualise our legal understanding of the Crown in these areas. In plain English, the situation is uncertain. Apodeictic (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G'day! I was the one who slimmed that passage. I believed, and still believe, that the material was adequately covered by other areas. While you raise some interesting questions, I suggest they are too theoretical to be of any real value. I do tip my hat to your scholarship and passion. About the possibility of war between two realms, though- if two realms went to war for reasons yet unforeseen: well, if they felt they were compelled to go to war they wouldn't say 'we can't because we both have the same Queen', would they? So I think the possibility of the Queen being at war with herself, so to speak (lol) is a practical dilema.--Gazzster (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to the article being slimmed. It's certainly true that there was a lot of duplication of material before I started contributing. At the time I didn't really see myself as an editor. I just got to work section by section fixing up some inaccuracies as well as expanding on information that was incomplete. The task of editing/ rearranging the article down to remove duplication is a big one which needs to be done -- so keep up the work. I fully accept the point that some things may only be of theoretical interest. Perhaps the point about the possibility of war is one of these. I suppose I was reacting more to your description of the edit in the article history (saying that the Queen of NZ can declare war on the Queen of Aus which is in fact uncertain) than to the fact that the material was removed from the article :-) Apodeictic (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing (not intended to alter what I said above). The point about war is not entirely moot. No-one denies that actual fighting (a de facto war) could break out between two Commonwealth realms. The point, however, is not aimed at the de facto status of the fighting but rather at its de jure status. In other words: how would the Australian legal system treat armed conflict between Australia and another Commonwealth realm? Whether two countries are de jure at "war" or not has real implications for real people. One obvious one is for the citizens of the country with which Australia is at war. These people suddenly become "enemy aliens" (as opposed to friendly aliens) which would affect their legal rights against the Australian Government. Apodeictic (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this helps or not, but there already has been war between realms; namely, between Pakistan and India, where King George VI was at war with himself as both King of India and King of Pakistan. There was also the issue of Grenada. But, of course, those aren't directly related to Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fascinating stuff, isn't it? Apodeictic, I think your're right; it should be removed.--Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware of both the India-Pakistan and Grenada conflicts and while providing some food for thought uncertainties still remain. This is an area where the law hasn't really caught up with the political reality of such a possibility. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced a Wikipedia article on the monarchy of Australia is not the appropriate place for a treatment of this interesting but difficult topic which is probably best left to a different forum altogether. You can't say everything in a Wikipedia article. Apodeictic (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though it would be cool if someone (hint, hint) could deal with some of these constitutional anomalies; maybe at Commonwealth realm?--Gazzster (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hint duly taken :-) It – along with a thousand other things – is now on my 'to do' list. Some of the stuff I've already contributed to the monarchy of Australia article may actually better belong in the Commonwealth Realm article. Eventually I'll get around to it. Apodeictic (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Look forward to it.--Gazzster (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian monarchs?
An article, List of Australian monarchs has been created. A link to it has been added to tis article. Someone went to effort to do it. But I do wonder what purpose it serves. The monarchs of Australia are listed here. And after all, there is no difference between a list of Australian monarchs and a list of Canadian monarchs or New Zealand monarchs or Jamaican monarchs, is there?--Gazzster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend the section being reduced to merely pointing out other article. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or referring to List of monarchs of the United Kingdom.--Gazzster (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a hunch (on my part); I think G2 would dispute such a wiki-linkage. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a few might, GD; a few might indeed.--Gazzster (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The content of that list is adequately covered by this article and the list of British monarchs. JPD (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Australia vs queen of Australia
I would redirect queen of Australia here but would redirect Queen of Australia to Elizabeth II as she is the only monarch ever to have held this title.. What do you think? --Camaeron (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * E2--Gazzster (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense Camaeron, I'm in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It basically depends whether people using that search term would be looking for an article on the person who has held that title, or information about their relation to Australia. It's not all that clear... JPD (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List
G2, if you're going to delete the list of monarchs on this page on the grounds that is unecessary (the list is replicated at List of Australian monarchs), doesn't it make more sense the delete the latter, since it by far the newer article? We need to sort of LoAM's fate on its own page.--Gazzster (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears to me that the majority of editors involved in the discussion around these two articles had a preference for deleting the list here. Or, did I count wrong? --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that. Even if they did, a small majority does not a consensus make, as you have remarked on many occasions.--Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though I didn't talk about a consensus. Just being bold, especially while wondering how long the discussion at Talk:List of Australian monarchs is supposed to go on. I don't think anyone has anything new to offer. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It will go long for as long as the editors feel it needs to go on to make a consensus. Opinions change, which is why discussion is good. After all, you agreed in principle to a single list. That's progress. And you never know: I might even make a concession too! Can't blame u for trying! Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * * shakes head * I never said I agreed, in any way, to a single list; I said I was open to the possibility of one if a proposed outline of what it would look like were put forward. I've been saying that for some time now. Regardless, no use in another lengthy discussion here on the same topic. --G2bambino (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, by all means, let's stop taking up the cyberspace here and go there!--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How's the irony of my using cyberspace to tell you that you just used cyberspace to tell me to stop taking up cyberspace here? --G2bambino (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol! How's the irony of responding to it?--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shameful... Just shameful. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Residences
Well, they're the Queen's transitory residences which she doesn't own. If we agree that the Australian and Canadian Monarchy articles need to be shortened, then it is unimportant to mention that the Royal derriere occasionally rests on the vice-regal sofa.--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section isn't called "The places the Queen stays in when she's in Australia," and it doesn't focus solely on that alone (in fact, by my reading the Queen's presence is actually a minimal part of the section). The residences are owned by the Crown and are there for the viceroys to live in while serving at Her Majesty's pleasure, so the subject matter is definitely relevant to this article. If you take it out, where else does it go? You can't just chuck it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion here, has made me raise a point at Yarralumla's article. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Status quo stands when an edit is challenged'? Well, first of all, G2 should have regarded my edit as the status quo and withheld his own. Secondly, he should have logically reverted every edit for the last ten days or so. To be really logical, we should not edit anything, ever, until we have a consensus for edit. Come now, G2. Does the article suffer with the section ommitted? BHow important is it?--Gazzster (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Either you're being purposefully obtuse, Gazz, or you have a serious misunderstanding of how things work here. If you make an edit, and it is challenged by another editor, the status quo is the default while a discussion on the matter takes place (unless the status quo is a blatant offence to Wikipedia policies); something that has stood since July of last year can pretty much be taken as the status quo. Your other edits were not challenged, but this one was. So, please, explain to us why the section is not important, and answer my question as to where else it might go. Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK gentlemen (G2 & Gazz), you're both at 2-reverts each & are hovering around the danger zone, be careful. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Its not worth gettin blocked for. Much more important things to be martyred for.--Gazzster (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Already have G2.--Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... nope. You haven't. --G2bambino (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My first post in this section, friend. And the note accompanying my first edit. If I didn't say where the info should go, its because I believe it doesnt need to go anywhere.--Gazzster (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember too that in Aus 'Crown Land' is not property owned by the Crown, but by the government. Thus NSW Premier Bob Carr could (albeit controversially) advise the Governor to leave Government House and take over the house for the government's purposes.--Gazzster (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first point in this section doesn't address anything I said immediately thereafter. I'll take it you did read my words since, however, as you've now stated you don't think the information should go anywhere. Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The residences are primarily for the Australian monarch's representatives (who are covered in parts of this article, and so are obviously relevant to the subject matter), and are, like Crown Land, indeed property owned by the monarch, a.k.a. the Crown. One could say the Crown and the government are one and the same thing, depending on what you mean by "the government" (the Crown, the Cabinet, the full organization including parliament, the civil service, bureaucrats, etc.). Yes, the article does need some shortening, but not at the expense of quality or relevant content. Perhaps the history section could be given it's own article, à la History of monarchy in Canada, instead. --G2bambino (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In Australia Crown Land is not owned by the Crown. If it were, it would mean governors and Governors-general could dispose of land as they wished. But they can't. Bob Carr didnt even let his own governor remain in his house. Does this article need shortening? Yes. (though Wiki advice on the matter is just that, not a mandate- there are a thousand more articles longer than this one)But the material here needs to be made more concise, shorn of repetition, trivialities, confusion, unverified facts(of which there remain many) and material which is not really important.Dividing into different articles only encourages repetition (because each article would have to be placed in context). A History of the Monarchy of Australia weould end up looking pretty much a repetition of this article, because it would include a description of the shared monarchy, the relationship between the monarchies, the monarch's constitutuional role, etc. --Gazzster (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have a source for that claim? Crown Land is called Crown Land for one reason: it is land that belongs to the Crown. Technically the Queen, Governors, whomever, could dispose of the land as they wish, but, of course, constitutional convention dictates that they not do so without the advice of their ministers, as happened in the NSW Government House case you keep raising. So, unless you can prove that the residences belong to something other than the Crown, where else would info on them go other than here? --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would take me a while to find a source for something that is taken for granted here. Like finding a source for 'people eat fish n chips'. But I can if you like. Gimme a while; a few other things on the boil.--Gazzster (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken for granted is not the same as being true. --G2bambino (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even without looking I can tell you that there is freehold land and crown land. Crown land is land owned by the government. It belongs to HM's government, not to the person of the Sovereign or to the institution. You are making a distinction between land owned by the government commissioned by the Sovereign and the Sovereign's private land. In Australia there is no such distinction. Vice-regal residences are built on crown land in the first sense, that is, belonging to the government.--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And first para of this --Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am indeed making a distinction between land owned by the sovereign as an individual and land owned by the sovereign as the state; it is the latter that I'm talking about. Of course "the government" owns Crown Land, but "the government," in this instance, is "the Crown"; hence, Crown Land. --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino, I just want to add here that you are showing severe confusion, and are misconstruing what Gazzster has written in your replies to his comments. He said: "You are making a distinction between land owned by the government commissioned by the Sovereign [i.e. Crown Land] and the Sovereign's private land." His language is correct and he is correct that the Sovereign does not own Crown Land.  You reply: "I am indeed making a distinction between land owned by the sovereign as an individual and land owned by the sovereign as the state".  By the latter you mean Crown Land, but you have put words in Gazzster's mouth - the sovereign does not own Crown Land, either personally or otherwise, and you cannot change that just by asserting that it is true.  In any case, the argument seems to have gone quiet since Matilda's post below. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sovereign and the Crown are inseperable. If the Crown owns land, then the sovereign owns land. In a constitutional monarchy, however, there is a separation between land owned by the sovereign in right of the state, and the sovereign in a personal capacity; the latter can be bought and sold without advice, using the monarch's private funds, while the former can only, normally, be bought and sold on the advice of Cabinet, using funds raised by the Crown through taxes. It isn't all that complicated to figure out. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sovereign and the Crown are certainly separable. You are using the word "sovereign" to describe Queen Elizabeth II, a person. "The Crown" on the other hand is the government, and there are many different governments, so there are different "Crowns" in different countries, and even in different states of Australia. Queen Elizabeth II has no power or ownership over any of the land owned by any of the Crowns (governments). You yourself elaborate slightly on this above, but you make it sound like the Queen can say: "Hey I want you to sell all the vacant land in the Northern Territory in Australia, make it so, my puppet government". She can't. I agree that it isn't all that complicated, but you continue in your confusion. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True.G2 seems to be intimating, whether he is aware of it or not, that EII is some kind of absolute monarch, only conceding power to her elected government. The monarchy in Australia is very different from the monarchy of the UK, Canada, or anywhere else. In Australia the monarchy exists in a different context. We do not have the same traditions and politics. The constitutional powers of the monarch reside in the Governor-general, so she does not enjoy the same prerogatives as she does in the UK. And anyway, she has no quasi-absolute powers in the UK, where the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty reigns, as in Australia. She has no property rights in Australia, and this includes the vice-regal residences. If G2 would like to present us with a reference that describes them as the sovereign's residences, we should consider it. But they are always described as the vice-regal residences.--Gazzster (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never made such an intimation, and I don't think I possibly could without seeming like an idiot; a monarch who lends his or her power to a cabinet is the very definition of a constitutional monarch, and thus could not be absolute. Lending, however, is not giving, so the Crown has not been removed from the sovereign's head to be collectively worn by the ministers in cabinet; "the government" is the Queen-in-Council, not the Council alone. Thus, the Crown's possessions are not the sole property of the government, either. As the Crown and the monarch certainly are inseperable, the Crown's possessions are the monarch's possessions as long as the monarch is on the throne, and they pass to the next sovereign upon the present one's demise, even though the monarch is directed by his or her ministers on how to acquire, run, and dispose of that property. Try and republicanise this all you want by claiming that the Queen is a figure completely absent from the Australian state and the Australian Crown is actually worn by Kevin Rudd, making him the owner of all state land as long as he's PM, but I'm certain you'll always be wrong as long as Australia is a monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly not insult your intelligence. And it is your intelligence and wit that makes discussion with you enjoyable, on this and other points. The statement of respect out of the way, you demonstrated what I'm talking about when you state a monarch who lends his or her power to a cabinet is the very definition of a constitutional monarch, and thus could not be absolute. We seem to have differing understandings of what a constitutional monarch. Constitutional monarchy in nations of Anglo-Celtic origin are underlined by the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Some who are interested in the Anglo-Celtic realms here at Wiki seem to misappreciate this principle. Some seem to think that it means the Crown has conceded its ancient powers to Parliament and binds itself to honour that concession perpetually. Not so. Supreme power actually belongs to Parliament, in Australia, Canada, Papua NG, etc, as in the UK, where the Mother of all Parliaments sits.It is Parliament that recognises the Sovereign as an integral part, and not the other way around. So Sovereignty is not even shared between Parliament and Sovereign, because Parliament and Sovereign are one. There is not even a distinction of sovereignty between Parliament and monarch. This point is explicitly stated in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, as in other that of other constitutional monarchies.

So you see, it is not a matter of the monarch 'lending' his or her authority, because the authority is not absolutely the monarch's to lend.But if it is maintained that power is ultimately the monarch's, which she 'lends' to his or her Parliament and cheif minister: yes, indeed, what is being described is an absolute monarchy. One states thereby that all power resides in the monarch. And this is not the case.

This has important implications. The Crown is not, as you say, the institution of monarchy alone, but the legal expression of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in which the monarch plays an integral part. No, of course Kevin Rudd does not own land in Australia, but neither does the monarch. Rather, the expression 'Crown Land' means land subject to the Sovereignty of Parliament properly understood. Republican sentiment doesn't come into it.--Gazzster (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you, Gazz, for affirming that I am not an idiot; I do wonder, sometimes!
 * But, you've just talked about parliament and the Crown, whereas, all the preceeding discussion centred around the government, which is the Crown-in-Council. I can see how all this gets murky; the Crown-in-Council is the government, but he Crown is also one of the three parts of parliament, while the Council (cabinet) only rests with the approval of another part of parliament. Yet, if we break it down, it isn't all that complicated. The parliament is the expression of the will of the people, yet it still sits and operates under the authority of the Crown (symbolised in the mace), and its members are all loyal to the monarch. Conversely, the monarch is given all executive authority through legislation passed by the parliament (or common law unchanged by parliament). In fact, it says explicitly in the constitution of Canada that the Queen is the government, and she is to be advised by her Privy Council. All the rest - Cabinet, ministers, advice, confidence of the house, etc., etc. - is convention. So, I'd be interested to hear if you think that Canada is therefore an absolute monarchy. I don't think it is. It seems to me that the entire arrangement is somewhat cyclical: the people (represented in parliament) have given the monarch all the powers of state, and the monarch uses those powers to govern the people. This is why it's commonly accepted that in a monarchy the monarch is the state; in a constitutional monarchy, the people have made it that way. So, as long as there's a sovereign of Australia, it is he or she who owns Crown Land in that country; nobody else has the ability to acquire, run, or dispose of it. --G2bambino (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may still misunderstand what I'm saying. It seems to me that you are still describing a nation governed under the principle of Monarchical Sovereignty. '..It's commonly accepted that in a monarchy the monarch is the state'. I'd question how common that actually is. And it sounds like Louis XIV ('L'etat ce'st moi'), not Elizabeth II.AS I've said, Sovereignty is vested not in the monarch alone, but in Parliament, of which the monarch forms an integral part: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth".(Const, Ch1,part1, sec.1)Of course the Queen, represented by a Governor-General, is the executive. But don't confuse the Executive with the fount of Sovereignty. The executive, as the name implies, executes the will of the Legislature. It is not necessarily the fount of Sovereignty. So in all nations of the Westminster tradition the monarch performs two roles: first, she forms part of Parliament, elected by the people, and with it, and not apart from it, constitutes the Sovereign Body of state. She is also the executive. Where the monarch is both the sole principle of sovereignty and the executive, we have an absolute monarchy. This is because, by definition, the executive is utterly unaccountable to any institution. But this is not the case in the Westminster tradition. It's dignity lies in the principle that the executive is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the will of the people. And you can't call the Queen 'the government'. In the UK a distinction is made between the Queen and the government by the phrase 'Her Majesty's Government'. If there is anything republican in this, as you suggest, it is a glory, not a shame. And indeed, the UK has been described as a 'crowned republic' many times, not the least by Alfred Tennysson.


 * It doesn't really help to make a distinction between the Cabinet-in Council and ther Queen-in-Parliament, for it is the latter, not the former, which is the Fount of Sovereignty.So the Queen as executive does not 'own' land. Parliament owns land, though I'm not sure 'own' is the correct word. Has supreme dominion over is perhaps a better phrase. And of course, this does not consider questions of Native Land Title, a principle which has recently come into the fore.--Gazzster (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, truthfully, I really don't know where you're getting this "parliament is the state" idea from. The parliament is still subject to the authority of the monarch: if parliament doesn't vote on a budget or otherwise denies funds for the executive, the monarch (or viceroy) can dissolve that parliament and call an election. Further, acts passed by parliament have zero effect until granted Royal Assent by the monarch (or viceroy). Still, this doesn't mean we're necessarily diverging in our opinions: I would say that sovereignty rests with the people, but the people have placed that sovereignty in the hands of the monarch to hold and protect it for them; hence, the term "Crowned republic," which I can somewhat support, as Westminster style parliamentary democracies under constitutional monarchies are, by all definitions, republican. Still, as long as the people place the powers of state in the monarch, the monarch owns the state's lands; perhaps "owns" is a bit of a misnomer, but it is, as I've said repeatedly, the sovereign alone who has the power to acquire, maintain, and sell those lands; parliament does not. So, the Government Houses of Australia belong to the Queen as Queen of Australia, she whom Australians still allow to own and run their state for them. They certainly do not belong to parliament, which has no ability to purchase, run, or dispose of those buildings. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Parliament is the state exactly. The state is the complex of various authorities deriving their authority from Parliament, or, should I say, the Constitution which established Parliament. For now that I get into this, I remember that we have separation of powers here; we have a High Court distinct from Parliament that can rule on the constitutionality of Parliament's Acts. This is something which the UK does not have. So the Constitution, not an Act of Parliament, must be the supreme law. In the UK, of course, the Parliament is not constrained in what it may enact.


 * I see we agree then, sort of, on a couple of points. But you still miss, if I may say, the essential point; the monarch alone does not hold the land. Remember ch.1, p.1,sec1? The Parliament is the Queen, the H. of Reps and the Senate, acting as one. It is, if you like, a monarch with three heads.The Queen cannot act alone. To acquire, own and dispose land implies an act of Sovereignty. Sovereign acts can be performed by Parliament alone.--Gazzster (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your excerpt from the Australian constitution; but, it only speaks of legislative authority. That is but one part of the functioning of the state. Yes, there are many more parts to it - the courts, the military, the police, the cabinet, etc. - but all those branches converge on one person: the Queen, because it is her authority, granted to her by the people, by which all those institutions operate. This includes Crown Land. One could say Crown Land belongs to the people, but it is all still handed over by the people to the Queen for her to hold and operate; the parliament cannot purchase, maintain, or dispose of it, nor can the Cabinet, or the military, or the courts. Only the Queen, or her viceroy, can. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you keep saying that. But if legislative authority is not the subject of Sovereignty, what is? There are three powers in Aust. government: legislative, executive, judicial. The Sovereign is part of the first; is (vicariously) the second. You seem to be speaking of a fourth power which the Constitution is silent about.--Gazzster (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep repeating it because it is true, and it is central to this discussion. I'll also repeat that the sovereign is part of all three institutions of government in Australia: parliament (Queen-in-Parliament), executive (Queen-in-Council), and judiciary (Queen-on-the-Bench). These are not "powers," they are organizations that exercise power, that power which belongs to the one constant throughout all three elements of governance; the monarch. Of course, we've already established that the difference, therefore, between constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy is that the sovereign in the former has stepped back and left decisions on how to exercise that power to parliamentarians, ministers, and judges. But that doesn't mean the power is no longer hers and now somehow belongs to any of those three groups. As I said, Kevin Rudd does not wear the Australian Crown (despite what he thinks), and nor does the Chief Justice of the High Court, or the members of parliament. Hence, it is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia (or Tasmania, or WA) who is a respondent in court cases, not the parliament of Australia; it is to the Queen of Australia that oaths of allegiance are given, not the parliament of Australia; it is the Queen of Australia who employs all government agents, not the parliament of Australia (if its the same as Canada, and I can't see why it wouldn't be). So, the government houses must be owned by someone; I say that as she is the state it is the Queen who owns them (only as sovereign and not as a private individual). If that isn't the case, then who exactly is it? --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The big question? Is Australia a constitutional monarchy or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. G2, you appear to contradict yourself, for at one point you concede that in a constitutional monarchy Sovereignty is derived from the People. But on the other hand you maintain that the monarch is the sole source of Sovereignty. This, despite the fact that Parliamentary Sovereignty, not Monarchical Sovereignty, is the bedrock of the Westminster system. The Constitution of Papua New Guinea goes so far as to explicitly state that the Constituent Assembly has asked the Queen to act as Head of State. In other words, the Constituent Assembly does not derive its authority from her. The Australian Constitution is not as explicit, but nevertheless continues to enshrine the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. 'Sovereignty' means exactly that. Either the Parliament, consisting of the Houses and the Sovereign as a single entity, is Sovereign, or it is not. I take it you do not deny that principle, but you seem to be trying to maintain the Sovereignty of the monarch alone. The monarch is the head of state. So yes, oaths of allegiance are made to her. But the fullness of Sovereignty does not necessarily repose in the head of state. THe President of the United Statesis H of S, vbut Sovereignty does not repose in him. You seem to be saying that while the Queen is an integral part of the legislative branch of government, she stands above all as the sole repository of power.And if you are indeed stating that the Monarch is the sole Fount of Sovereignty, you are describing an absolute monarchy. The fact that her ministers actually govern does not make it a constitutional monarchy. According to you, the constitution is nothing more than a means of exercising the royal prerogative. So the Constitution has no independent standing. If, as you say, all state power, which must include Parliament, the Judiciary and the Constitution itself, is derived from the monarch, it remains theoretically possible for the monarch to return any or all of that power to herself. There would be no true freedom because the Constitution could not stand by itself. In other words, it would not be inviolable.This is most certainly not the case with the United Kingdom and its unwritten Constitution. And as I've asked before, if it is not the case in the UK, how can it be so in Australia? The Queen is not 'the state', as you maintain. Of course she represents the state. THe state is a far more complex thing.--Gazzster (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly contracticting myself. I thought I made it clear, but perhaps I haven't; so, I'll make another attempt: in a constitutional monarchy, sovereignty rests with the people, but they place that sovereignty in the hands of the monarch. The organs of government sit in between the monarch and the people, I suppose. That makes the sovereign the personification of the state. I ask again, therefore: someone owns the government houses; if it isn't the sovereign, then who is it? --G2bambino (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The taxpayers (i.e. the people). GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who don't pay taxes aren't part of "the people"? --G2bambino (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with 'personification'. 'Representative' or 'embodiment' might be a more suitable word. But a representative or 'personification', if you like, does not necessarily own the goods of the state. The President of the United States does not own the property of the United States; the CEO of a corporation does not own the assets of the corporation.--Gazzster (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK
OK, but I would rather put it: Sovereignty rests with the People. They do not abdicate that sovereignty, but delegate its exercise to the Commonwealth Parliament for three years and to the State Parliaments, mostly for four years. The Parliaments, that is, properly understand, of which the monarch is an integral part. It is more correct to state that the exercise of Sovereignty rests with the Parliaments, not the monarch alone. So ultimately the vice-regal residences belong to People. But we don't use that language. Rather we say they belong to the Commonwealth, in the case of Governors-general and Administrators, or the respective State in the case of Governors.--Gazzster (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, of course the people don't abdicate their sovereignty; as we've established long ago: the realms are constitutional monarchies, not absolute ones. However, what they have done is establish a contractual relationship wherein the exercise, and protection, of their sovereignty is placed with the monarch, who then becomes a servant of the people. As the holder of all the state's power and sovereignty, the sovereign becomes the personification of the state, and therefore the person who "owns" its physical manifestations: the land, waterways, buildings, infrastructure, economy, and the like. Of course, "owns" is a bit of a stretch; you and I both know EIIR doesn't own Australia in the sense that it's her personal property. It is, though, something maybe akin to a trusteeship; the Queen collects the taxes and maintains peace and order in the land at the request of the Australian people, passing that territory and that duty on to her successor when she dies. So, of course "Crown Land" is synonymous with "public land"; it's financed by the public's money, after all. But to whom is that tax money paid? The Queen. Who signs off on purchases or sales of that land? The Queen. Who may use that land? The Queen's subjects (even those who don't pay her taxes). Whose laws govern that land? The Queen's. Whose, then, are the government houses, again? --G2bambino (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the first part of your response. Of course, we are both stepping into an area where lawyers expend a lot of hot air. So there are bound to be grey areas. Even so, I'm not comfortable with equating the Crown with the person of the Sovereign. 'The Crown' in Westminster tradition, is Parliament and Queen, for the two are inseparable.
 * "Throughout the Commonwealth realms The Crown is an abstract metonymic concept which represents the legal authority for the existence of any government. It evolved naturally as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch."
 * The Crown
 * Otherwise you cannot avoid treating the Sovereign as a source of jurisdiction in his or her own right. If one does the latter, a two-headed beast is created; a state whose head is Parliament and whose other is the Queen. You are not, of course, saying that.But it does seem to me that your line of reasoning leads you to a contradictory conclusion: a Sovereign Parliament and a Sovereign Queen whose authority is supreme and inviolable. You have stated as much, claiming that the Queen has authority over Parliament. That is contradictory because there cannot, by definition, be two Sovereign authorities.
 * We have already established that to say the Crown,'owns' public land is an imperfect way of saying that the particular moral entity in question possesses rights of jurisdiction over a piece of land which may include the right of occupation, disposal, drawing income from, renting, leasing or sale thereof. This land is in the general keep of the State, as opposed to private land, which is under the particular jurisdiction of an individual, trust, corporation or some other moral person. So to say, 'the Crown owns Government House in Adelaide' is ambiguous. It could mean 'the State', of which the monarchy is an integral part, owns Government House', in which case there is no particular merit in stating the fact, seeing as they are not royal residences, but vice-regal ones. You may quite as easily as with just as much accuracy state that the Crown owns all public buildings in Australia. Again, there is no particular merit in doing so. Or it could mean that the Queen as a private person or as an institution 'owns' the site as pivate property.But you already acknowledge this is not the case. So we really need to ask ourselves how accurate or meritorious is it to state that the Crown (not the Queen) owns the vice-regal residences? Let's remember that this article is about the institution of monarchy in Australia considered in itself, abstracted from its constitutional context.--Gazzster (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some overlaps in the system that are bound to cause confusion, but I don't think there's much vaguery around the point of the sovereign and the crown being inseperable; in fact, section 35 of chapter I-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 states: "Her Majesty", "His Majesty" , "the Queen", "the King" or "the Crown" means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth, a definition that is repeated in the Interpretation Acts of various provinces. That alone proves that government houses in Canada are owned by the Queen; I can't imagine why Australia would be different in that regard. It seems to me, Gazz, that you think Australia is different due to confusion between 'legislatie authority and all authority, as though parliament had no limits. I never said parliament is sovereign - it is not bound by its predecessors, and the actions therein cannot be judged by the courts, but it's actions - in terms of the laws it produces - are subject to judicial review, and can be struck down by the courts. It was the people whom I said were sovereign, and they pass that sovereignty to the Queen to exercise and protect for them. As it is she, and not parliament, who embodies the state, it is she who owns the government houses as long as she is on the throne. --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * G2bambio: You are really getting yourself into a bind. Responding directly to various assertions/rhetorical questions in your most recent post above:
 * the Queen collects the taxes ... at the request of the Australian people....
 * Wrong. See Royal_Prerogative.
 * But to whom is that tax money paid? The Queen.
 * Wrong. See Royal_Prerogative.
 * Who signs off on purchases or sales of that land? The Queen.
 * Wrong. See Royal_Prerogative.
 * Who may use that land? The Queen's subjects (even those who don't pay her taxes).
 * Wrong. Australian citizens are not British subjects (and nor for that matter are British citizens anymore).
 * Whose laws govern that land? The Queen's.
 * Wrong.
 * Whose, then, are the government houses, again?
 * Not the Queen's! 86.9.201.247 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm bound by is facts, not arbitrary blurts of opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent removed) The residence is that of the Governor-General and is always described as that, not of the queen. For example from the website of the Governor General - ''In 1909, the site for the Federal capital was finally decided and thereafter the large Campbell holdings were resumed. At the time of acquisition the Government had no clear plans for the future of the homestead at Yarralumla. However, the suggestion to use Yarralumla for a temporary residence for the Governor-General was first made as early as 1911. ... In 1921 the Federal Capital Advisory Committee proposed that Yarralumla should be refurbished to provide temporary accommodation for the Governor-General pending the construction of a new permanent residence. It was not until January 1925 that Federal Cabinet finally agreed to fit out Yarralumla for its new vice-regal function. Work was started on enlarging the Yarralumla of those days to house the Governor-General.'' Please note housing the GG not the Queen - there is no mention anywhere of it being the Queen's house. Again from the GG website: Yarralumla, the Australian Governor-General’s official residence. From the Australiana Fund website : '' Government House ... has been the official residence of the Governor-General in Canberra since 1927 ... The Queen stays at Government House when she visits Canberra as do some visiting Heads of State from various countries. '' I think the onus is for those who wish to dispute the fact that it is not an official residence of the Queen to come up with a cite from a reliable source that states it is and not the synthesis of some arguments (which is against policy)  to suggest otherwise. --Matilda [[User_talk:Mat|undefined 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Sovereignty as opposed to Sovereignty of the Monarch alone
I should like to see a source for this extraordinary claim that the People delegate their power to the Sovereign alone, as opposed to Parliament (consisting of Sovereign, House of Reps and Senate). In saying that Parliamentary Sovereignty is the principle of government in Australia I am citing the Government’s own website. http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html Not, indeed, that I feel I should need to. If the People are Sovereign, and Parliament represents the People, then Parliament is Sovereign?! Sounds logical to me. You are right that Parliament is not free to make any law it wishes. The High Court may indeed review or even strike down its laws if they are unconstitutional, illegal or invalid. The Constitution is the Supreme Law. But that does not mean that Parliament is not Sovereign, because Sovereignty does not necessarily imply unfettered power. It may mean, as in this case, that the supreme law-making power is vested in the Sovereign authority, albeit limited by a Constitution in what it may enact. I am also fascinated by your attempt to separate the legislative power from the Sovereign power. If power to legislate is not indicative of Sovereignty, what is? If the Queen is Sovereign (or, as you say, alone, and not with Parliament, represents the People), but has no power to legislate in her own right, what does Sovereignty mean? Note that I am not saying the Queen has no place in the Sovereign Body. She does. Our Constitution says so.--Gazzster (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure who that was addressed to. I think I agree with you, though.  The monarch is the Sovereign, but she does not have sovereign power.  Sovereign power is wielded by the Parliament (representing the people), of which the monarch is but one of three elements.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To G2Bambino, a continuation of the discussion above. The Royal supremacy does however have disturbingly common advocates across the monarchy-related pages.--Gazzster (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Future change in relation to succession
As I read it, the sub-section Monarchy_of_Australia seems to contain much original research or synthesis. It is inadequately referenced. I think it should be removed unless reliable sources can be cited in support of the arguments contained therein.--Matilda talk 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the time being I have commented out the bulk of the discussion and requested a citation for the lead --Matilda talk 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I say feel free to delete the whole section.--Gazzster (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole section contradicts WP:CRYSTAL! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Australian monarch, besides reigning in Australia, separately serves as monarch for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries known as Commonwealth realms." - should read - Elizabeth II, besides reigning in Australia... etc. Otherwise it sounds like the Australian monarch reigns in the other fifteen Commonwealth countries ! Lejon (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Lejon 25 May 08
 * Er, the Australian monarch does reign in the other fifteen Commonwealth countries. Unless Australia has a different EIIR than the rest of us. Though I do see that there might be some unnecessary repetition in the sentence. --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth herself reigns in 15 other Commonwealth countries but not as the Australian monarch ie ' Queen of Australia ' which is a completely separate legal and constitutional office . The paragraph in the article is technicaly correct because it uses the word 'separately ' but an 'outsider' reading wikipedia could easily get the impression that it is the Australian monarch ( Q of A ) that reigns in those other countries .Lejon (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 26May 08
 * Well, though I might agree with you, what's here now was the result of a lengthy and turbulent debate about whether or not the British monarch reigned in any other country besides the United Kingdom. It was decided by others that the British monarch somehow did reign outside of the UK; so, it had to follow that, conversely, the Canadian/Tuvaluan/Barbadian/Australian/etc. monarch reigned in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. Unfortunately, consensus does not always bring about the most clear or accurate result. --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks G2 , personaly I think the ' others' are wrong but it would take an extremely long and tedious debate to show why. Lejon (talk)25 May 08 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you're interested, the "long and turbulent" debate is now at Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom/Archive 2, starting here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link G2 - strewth - I'm not getting involved in something like that. Please disregard my original query. I note that in the Wiki article on the Statute of Westminster there are references to a unitary Crown and a common allegiance to the Crown . I guess the confusion starts because the word 'Crown' can have different meanings. Lejon (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Sentence
The last sentence in the History section:

The republic was floated again, and widely supported. Rudd has come out in support and intimated that the republic may become a reality before the end of the reign of Elizabeth II

The reference provided makes no mention of a Republic before the end of Elizabeth II's reign nor does it mention a republic being widely supported. If anyone can provide a better source, please add one. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the text that isn't supported by the citation. Rudd said in the transcript I think what the summit was saying loud and clear is that there is a big groundswell of support for a republic in Australia. In order to bring a republic about and I'm a longstanding republican, and we're committed as a party to bring about a republic, you do need widespread community support. We lost the last referendum nearly 10 years ago, we don't want to lose the next one. So we'll be building this one up very carefully. - as per MichiganCharms that does not equal the summit widely supporting a republic - rather Rudd spinning what he thought he heard.  Nothing about timing in relation to reign of QE2 rather he says he is building up to a referendum but slowly. --Matilda talk 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Head of State / Personal Union
This article states the Queen must be the Head of State in Australia. After all she is in "personal union" with other countries!!! --Lawe (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get it. --Gazzster (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation is described as a personal union... "personal union" is defined (in the Wikipedia article) as referring to sharing a Head of State. The minutiae of terminlogy at work - it would make just as much sense to define "personal union" slightly differently. JPD (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you and Lawe are saying. The whole 'who is Australia's head of state thing, and the application of the term 'personal union' to the constitutional monarchies sharing E2.
 * Lawe's just using the vague definition of "head of state" as reason to doubt the personal union issue; god only knows why. Most personal unions throughout history have been focused on one sovereign anyway. There can be no doubt that Australia has a shared sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a vague definition of sovereign, because in this case it would be a Head of State. --Lawe (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, as you already know well enough. --G2bambino (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple question: Is Australia sharing its Head of State or not? --Lawe (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a simple question, it's a purposely skewed question. The better question is: Is Australia sharing its monarch or not? --G2bambino (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To share or not to share. That is the question. I think we ought to be having this discussion somewhere central. It seems spred over many pages at the moment. Might I suggest WP:CWR? ;) --Cameron* 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not the question --Lawe (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This from the Queen's own website: "The Commonwealth celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2009: from Australia to Antigua, Canada to Cameroon, it is a remarkable international organisation, spanning every geographical region, religion and culture. It exists to foster international co-operation and trade links between people all over the world. The Queen is Head of State of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. She is also Head of the Commonwealth itself, a voluntary association of 53 independent countries. Find out more about the Commonwealth in this section." http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Overview.aspx Jleonau (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Royal Coat of Arms of Australia"
The infobox at the top right of the article presently shows the coat of arms of Australia with the caption "Royal Coat of Arms of Australia". As I understand it this coat is the coat of arms of Australia, not of the Queen of Australia. The article Australian Royal Symbols says that the Queen of Australia's personal arms (as displayed in state courtrooms) are indentical to the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. The caption needs to be changed, or the arms possibly removed from the infobox altogether as being of doubtful relevance. Opera hat (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now realised that a lot of the other "Monarchy in [Commonwealth Realm]" articles may have a similar problem, depending on whether the arms really are the arms of the Queen of that country or whether they are the arms of the country itself. Maybe this needs to be raised at Template talk:Infobox Monarchy instead. Opera hat (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for the UK:Ultimately they are the arms of the monarch of the country although they are nowadays inextricably linked with the state. I can't speak for the other realms but I believe the same applies there too. --Cameron* 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know this is the case in the United Kingdom, and in Canada too. As I've said above it seems not to be the case in Australia. This issue began at Talk:Flags and coats of arms of Elizabeth II, where I pointed out that the distinct coat of arms of the Vatican City and coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI demonstrate that a monarch does not always bear the same arms as his country. Opera hat (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are. I think each state's arms ought to be reviewed individually to see whether action need be taken. --Cameron* 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The present Coat of Arms was granted by George V in 1912. It is a symbol of the Federation and are owned by the Commonwealth . It is 'Royal' in the sense that it was granted by Royal Warrant. It is not a symbol of the monarch of Australia per se.I don't see a problem with keeping the Arms in the infobox: let's just remove the prefix 'Royal' to avoid identifying it with the Monarch personally.--Gazzster (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Royal" prefix is embedded in Template:Infobox Monarchy which is used in lots of articles, so that really should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Monarchy. Opera hat (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This comes down to a matter of terminology; the link Gazzter points to doesn't say the arms belong to the Commonwealth (whatever defines that), it says they're used by "the government." As the government in Australia is the Queen's government, and the authority the government wields is the Queen's authority, it's not so cut-and-dry as to say "the arms that represent the Queen's government are not the Queen's arms, and thus not royal." I'm not saying the template shouldn't be altered to accomodate variations across different countries, but I don't think we should so easily dismiss what might actually be true. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also add to this discussion that the Queen's Royal Standard for her realms in which she has one (including Australia) is a banner of that realm's coat of arms; another point that somewhat muddies the distinction between whether the arms are royal or not. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. For the United Kingdom the Royal Standard is just a banner of the royal arms, but for the other Commonwealth realms for which the Queen has a designated Personal Flag that flag is a banner of the national arms defaced by the Royal cypher. That would seem to imply that the national arms are not the same as the royal arms. Opera hat (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'The Australian Coat of Arms is the property of the Commonwealth Government'.Apologies-that particular statement was not from the site I referenced before.Again, I've no objection to the Arms in the infobox.It isan article about Australia, after all. I'm only wary of the implication that they are the Monarch's arms. The Queen's Australian Standard is pictured in the article and does not feature the Commonwealth Arms.--Gazzster (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And, the Commonwealth government is the Queen-in-Council. Her standard features the shield of the "Commonwealth Arms." I'm not sure how relevant the cypher is to the matter. The banners were just another thing to consider in this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I say, I don't have a problem with the arms being in the infobox. It's the 'it's the Queen's Nation, so it's the Queen's Arms' thing that I object to. The Commonwealth is not the Government. The Arms of the Commonwealth represent the Federation. The State is a wider concept than merely the Government.The Queen has her own personal standard, and, if you look, it features symbols of the six states. The kangaroo and emu crest is not featured.--Gazzster (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your source said the arms are property of the "Commonwealth government," that would be Her Majesty's government in Canberra, would it not? Regardless, this is a debate for vexologists; I just don't think any of us here have enough knowledge of the matter to say anything for sure, one way or the other. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's not so much a vexillogical issue as a constitutional one. Here in the UK the Sovereign constitutionally is the government (legislation is passed by the Crown-in-Parliament, for example) so it would make sense for them to have the same arms. I don't know how far that is the case in Australia or the other Commonwealth realms. Opera hat (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Queen's Personal [Commonwealth Realm]ian Flags are relevant to the discussion at all. As they are not heraldic banners of any known coat-of-arms (though this is an incorporated element) then they are useless for establishing what arms their user bears. You might as well try to argue that the arms of the Governor-General of Australia are Azure a representation of St Edward's Crown proper thereon a lion statant guardant or imperially crowned proper and in base a scroll or bearing the words "Commonwealth of Australia" based on the fact that s/he uses that flag. Opera hat (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the questions hinges on what we mean by the 'Royal Coat of Arms'. If by that term we mean a device that represents the Royal Person, the Commonwealth Arms are very definitely not the Royal Coat of Arms. For they do not represent the Person of the Sovereign, but the State of which she is Queen. She already has a personal standard for use in Australia. If by 'Royal Coat of Arms' we mean the Arms constituted by Royal Warrant, sure- why not? But G2bambino seems to be understanding it in the first sense,on the grounds that the Federation is the Sovereign, and so is her personal standard. This smacks of the identification of the person of the Monarch with the State in a manner that is unjustified by reason, law and tradition, as discussed above ('Parliamentary Sovereignty', etc).--Gazzster (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But G2bambino seems to be understanding it in the first sense, on the grounds that the Federation is the Sovereign, and so is her personal standard. This smacks of the identification of the person of the Monarch with the State in a manner that is unjustified by reason, law and tradition, as discussed above. Is there some different coat of arms for the UK apart from those of EIIR in right of that country? Ditto for Canada? Or, is Australia, again, somehow different? --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the UK, no; I don't know about Canada. But the article on Australian Royal Symbols which I cited in my first post in this section does refer to the Queen's personal arms, which are not the same as the arms of the Commonwealth of Australia. I don't know how far that makes Australia different, though - other countries where the monarch and the government use separate coats of arms include the Vatican City (also mentioned above), Denmark and Sweden. Opera hat (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I would understand the term "Royal Coat of Arms of Australia" to mean "the coat of arms of the Queen of Australia". Opera hat (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all conjecture. --Lawe (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The arms in question were granted by the King of the United Kingdom to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1912, by Royal Warrant to the Earl Marshal of England. Anyone who tries to assert that these arms are now somehow borne by the independent Queen of Australia must provide evidence to support his claim. If arms are not borne by the Sovereign or by a member of the Sovereign's family, then they are not Royal Arms. Opera hat (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Twenty-seven minor edits

 * G2bambino made about twenty-seven minor changes to the article, including reverts. All the paragraphs were altered for no reason, other than to make things confusing. The whole article was a complete mess. There was no agreement on any points. This is the sort of poor example that generates conflict with other editors. Please learn to use the sandbox. 2 or 3 edits we understand, but twenty-seven !!!! --Lawe (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you can't keep up. Each edit is clearly documented, though; most are simple movements of text from one location to another, merging similar topics and eliminating repetition. I'm not done yet, either. If you have any issue, feel free to raise it here, instead or blindly reverting again, that is. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to make changes to this article G2bambino, please mention them here first so we can get a consensus. I suggest you stop making irregular changes. --Lawe (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Irregular by whose definition, Dlatimer? I really need not present every edit here for approval; do I need your permission to move a comma or reword a sentence? If you have a specific issue, bring it forward and I will do my best to address it. I'm not going to have you vet every change I want to make before-hand. --G2bambino (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! When you revert other contributions, the comment is invariably that the editor needs to discuss first, so I thought you were serious. But we see that your own instruction does not extend to your good self. This explains why the article is full of nonsense, such as explained below. So from this point, all editors are invited to get the article correct and not obtain permission. Glad to see this cleared up. --Lawe (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with WP:EP. Only contentious edits need discussed. You, however, seem to have an issue with me making edits, period. That again reminds me to remind you to also read WP:OWN. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the twenty seven edits are many contentious changes. You have employed a strategy to hide those contentious edits. Very disappointing. --Lawe (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say so. In the meantime, please try and be more productive; your getting grumpy about being wrong, making personal attacks, and editing to make a point is not going to get us anywhere. --G2bambino (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making personal attacks against you. Please do not confuse your 27 confusing edits with your personal status. I am also writing about process, which you should also not take personally. Please consider the needs of other users and that someone has to pay for computing resources. --Lawe (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said how severe the attacks are, but I believe your implication that I am a disingenious editor would be an attack on my character. I am editing within guidelines and will not make for you a special exception of having you vet each and every edit I want to make. --G2bambino (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian/UK Point of View
This article is written from a Canadian point of view. There are things which do not even register as remotely Australian. Much of the material is written ignoring federal state issue. The material cites heavily from the UK government, not the Australian govt. --Lawe (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples, please? --G2bambino (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always assumed, that the Australian monarchy was the same as the Canadian, Jamaican, British etc monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar, but not 100% the same. --G2bambino (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads fine to me, Mr Latimer. ;) --Cameron* 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is getting better in this respect. There were a number of comparisons to Canada, quotations by Toporoski, which didn't seem to make much sense, and a number of assumptions, based on the way things are done in the UK or Canada (eg, 'Australian' Royal Family, Australian viceroys are regularly members of the Royal Family, overemphasis on the royal prerogative which makes no sense in an Australian context, etc). These have, for the most part, been edited out. Many probably remain and I believe the article needs to be finely combed and better referenced. Part of the problem seems to be the general assumption that the monarchies are carbon copies of each other. It is supposed, then, that references for the one can be indiscriminately used to reference the other. In reality each monarchy is contextualised by the constitutions of the country. This produces some important differences. For example, the Queen in the UK can personally appoint, or dismiss, if she is required to, a prime minister.In Australia she cannot.In Papua New Guinea, the viceroy must by law consult both the Government and the Leader of the Opposition before using the emergency powers.--Gazzster (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I've done my best to note the unique aspects of the Crown in Australia. I may not have got them all, however. As I said above, though, this remains a work in progress. --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting stuff. If you're gonna have a monarchy? ya won't a benign one (i.e constitutional). GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Canadian influence is pervasive. There are too many mistakes to mention, and yet its pointless changing them because G2bambino reverts back immediately. --Lawe (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on the court is completely incorrect. There is nothing about it which is true in the Australian context. --Lawe (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples, please? (That's the second time.) --G2bambino (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as you (Lawe) & Gazz are Australians? it's only natural that you'd both would have better knowledge of the situation (I suppose). Whatever ya'll decide, of course. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've only once set foot in a court so I don't really know. Perhaps Lawe could give us some examples, or even be bold and edit out the wrog stuff. I must admit to frowning slightly at the reference to the 'Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Australia'. That doesn't sound right but I don't know. The Commonwealth Arms would be in federal courts if that's what it means. I always thought the Queen's Arms were the 'Dieu et mon droit' thing with the lion and unicorn.--Gazzster (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that might irk you, Gazz. ;) Really, though, I was hoping to find some proper information about that, or an Aussie could correct it for me; if it's wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The official guidelines for the use of the Commonwealth C of A is to be found here (beginning). They are used in federal courts. Since they are not referred to as the 'Coat of Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Australia', it is reasonable to suppose that they aren't.--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then there seems to be little reason to mention the arms here. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and they shouldn't be referred to as the "Royal Coat of Arms of Australia" in the infobox, either. Opera hat (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem so.--Gazzster (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole section on courts is incorrect. So start with the first sentence and go to the second ect... Australian courts are independent of the monarchy (as per High Court decision). No appeals to the Queen, no prerogative of mercy, no legitimacy, no Queen-on-the-bench, no lawsuits against the Queen or foreign court issues, no 'God Save the Queen' ect... The WHOLE SECTION is written by someone with a vivid imagination. The sources are misunderstood e.g. Harry Gibbs was talking about "400 years ago". He actually says "Indeed, the framers of our Constitution accepted the view of the separation of the judicial power from the legislative and executive powers." This is basic stuff. --Lawe (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of what you say isn't true is actually verified, while some of it may indeed not be right. But you've nothing to verify that it isn't. Gibbs' comment on the separation of powers has nothing to do with eliminating the Crown from the courts, as though the courts floated around as extra-legal entities, answerable to no-one. --G2bambino (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Separation of powers IS about separating the Crown (the executive) from the courts. --Lawe (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The Crown is not the executive. --G2bambino (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to your edits the Crown appears to be the alpha and omega, so no wonder this page is so distant from reality. Read about [The_Crown] please. --Lawe (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well familiar with the article. Perhaps you are not, however, with the page's distinct section on the Crown and courts, which states: "This practice of using the seat of sovereignty [emphasis mine] as the injured party is analogous with criminal cases in the United States, where the format is ["the people" or "the State"] v. [the defendant]..." --G2bambino (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So by this logic, one party is also the fount of justice. What an unfair and unjust system of judicial procedure. Thank goodness it was in reality abandoned centuries ago. --Lawe (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously it hasn't been dispensed with; in any court today one of the parties can be the fount of justice and seat of sovereignty, whether that be the monarch or the people. --G2bambino (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen..' (Cont., ch.III sec 61) Lawe is right about the separation of the executive from the judicial branch of government. In the UK there is no such separation.--Gazzster (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody said he was incorrect on that point. It's just not a relevant point to the section in the article on the Crown in the courts. --G2bambino (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WHAT!!! It's the only relevant issue! --Lawe (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it obviously is not. That is why there is a separate section all-together on the Crown's role in the executive. --G2bambino (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. So by 'Crown', G2 you mean the seat of sovereignty, not the executive power. Remember also that, legally, The Crown is not the monarch alone, but the Government in generalof which she is part-the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty an all that.--Gazzster (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're confusing uses of the word "Crown." In this circumstance, the Crown is the seat of sovereignty, not the Crown as "the government," which is specifically the Crown-in-Council. The Crown is clearly the seat of sovereignty in Australia, at least according to the High Court, which titles it's cases as [Name] v The Queen, not [name] v The Parliament of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The authors of the site OZ Politics discuss the anamolies in Australia with regard to the principle of 'the rule of law'. In this context they define the concept of 'The Crown':
 * The first anomaly is what lawyers call the shield of the Crown. The shield of the Crown is a collective term for the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Crown. The term “Crown” here does not just refer to the monarch and her representatives - the Governor-General and the state governors - it also covers the wider sense of the executive government, including government departments and statutory authorities. Most of the ancient privileges and immunities of the crown have been abolished by the Westminster, Commonwealth and state parliaments. However, a few privileges and immunities remain including the principle that legislation does not bind the Crown except by express words or implication. In plain English, in many (but not all) circumstances the government can ignore legislation unless it contains the statement: “this Act binds the Crown.(Italics mine)
 * So when the courts use the form 'the Queen vs N.', they do not mean the person of the Sovereign, but the State of which she forms an integral part. Likewise, in the USA and other countries, 'The People' does not mean the electorate,but the State'.--Gazzster (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your quote highnights my second point above: the Crown-in-Council. However, that isn't important in this discussion, which is about the Crown-on-the-Bench. You're right that Queen and state are synonymous, though. --G2bambino (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool.But you did write 'You're confusing uses of the word "Crown." In this circumstance, the Crown is the seat of sovereignty, not the Crown as "the government," which is specifically the Crown-in-Council'.And that is what I was responding to. The 'Queen-on-the-Bench' has the same implication. If you say 'the Queen' in this sense means the Person of the Sovereign, you must logically conclude that all juridical power resides in that Person. That is just as untrue as saying that the Person of the Sovereign is the holder of executive power. The answer is simple: 'the Queen' simply means 'the Crown', in the sense that you just acknowledged. I'm afraid your getting yourself in a bind.--Gazzster (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly! The sovereign is the sole holder of executive power, the Australian constitution is clear on that matter. It is also clear on the point that the council part of Queen-in-Council is only there to advise the monarch, through the Governor-General, on how to govern the Commonwealth. The constitution is not clear on where judicial power originates from in Australia, but we have enough sources to support the fact that it stems from the Crown, meaning that judges, appointed by the Crown-in-Council, perform the monarch's judicial duties in her name, as they do in the name of The People in the United States. --G2bambino (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, the footnote from Gibbs (35) seems to contradict the idea that the Queen is the source of juridicial authority. Bear with me if I quote at length, but only to put the relevant statements in context:

ACM Home Resources  Speeches  The Crown and the High Court - Celebrating the 100th birthday of the High Court of Australia

The Crown and the High Court - Celebrating the 100th birthday of the High Court of Australia Written by The Rt Hon Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG,AC,KBE Friday, 17 October 2003 Address at the ACM Parliamentary Luncheon on the occasion of the 2003 ACM National Conference NSW Parliament House Sydney, Australia

Transcript as released by the Office of Research and EducationSIR

Justice will not be done unless the judges are completely independent and free from all external influences, including that of the Crown. We have seen in the recent past, in countries like Germany and the USSR, and see today in some other countries, how tyranny flourishes if judges bow to the wishes of the executive. No one suggests that the Queen herself would seek to exert any influence on a judge, but it is not beyond imagination that some executive officials might seek to do so. It is true that the crown has traditionally been regarded as the fount of justice and that in taking the Coronation oath, the Queen swore to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in her judgments. Since medieval times, the Crown has caused justice to be done by means of the judges. About 400 years ago King James I claimed the right to interfere directly with the legal process, and asserted that it was treason to deny him that right, but was told by a courageous Chief Justice that “the King ought to be under no man but under God and the law.” (2) The strength of the monarchy is due to the fact that it has adapted to changes in social conditions and it has been established for many centuries that the Crown plays no part in the judicial process except to appoint the judges. Indeed, the framers of our Constitution accepted the view that the separation of the judicial power from the legislative and executive powers is “one of the main preservatives of the nation’s liberty”(3). They incorporated this principle into the Constitution. The principle has been strictly applied, so that the Constitution has been held to prevent any institution which is not a court from exercising judicial power, (4) and conversely to prevent a judge from being given functions which are not judicial (5). --Gazzster (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gibbs speaks about who exercises the judicial powers, not from where their authority to do so stems. --G2bambino (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is not a murky area we're discussing. But I'm glad we agree that 'the Queen'in a juridicial or political sense does not mean the Person of the Queen, or even the institution of the monarchy abstracted from other elements of Government.We should still tread carefully here though.Magna Carta established that kings were subject to the Rule of Law. I guess I'm wary of anyone suggesting that the law emanates from the Queen.I guess its safe to say though that the Monarch is the custodian of the Law.I'm glad this 'court' section has been brought up; it really does seem to be in need of serious edit. I'm also concerned about the 'prerogative of mercy'. I'm not aware of the Monarch exercising the preogative on behalf of any Australian citizen. Neither of any viceroy exercising it. Does anyone have any sourceable thoughts on that?--Gazzster (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We can only go by what the sources say. --G2bambino (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Answered my own question. The Crimes Act 1961 states how the Governor-in-Council exercises the preogative on the advice of the Minister of Justice. And the Crimes Act 1914 also refers to it. We need a lawyer! Help!--Gazzster (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is about New Zealand. The sources do not support what is written. --Lawe (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! You're right. My bad!--Gazzster (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Repealed Section of Acts are referenced
Once again we find that repealed sections of legislation have been inserted into articles (guess who?). In this case we see references to repealled sections of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. It seems to be the saem with other acts too. --Lawe (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear me, I made a mistake. We all do, though; even you. Or, had you forgotten that? --G2bambino (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But how? How is it possible that you referenced repealed legislation. So you flew from Canada to Sydney and went to the Mitchell Library and accidently looked up a set of old NSW statutes? Then went to the other jurisdictions and did the same? What is going on? --Lawe (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

50 kilobytes and growing
This article is long. The recommended maximum is 30 kilobytes. Time to start prioritising. Much of this is repeated in other articles. There seems to be much that could be done to make the article a reasonable length. --Lawe (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 50kb is quite average. --G2bambino (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RAAF Badge.gif
The image Image:RAAF Badge.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Anthem
Quote: "God Save the Queen" is Australia's Royal Anthem. Due to a contemporaneous mistake in the Government Gazette, it is sometimes thought that the Royal Anthem can only be played in the presence of the Queen.

Query: What is this "contemporaneous mistake" that's referred to? And if it was a mistake, what makes it "contemporaneous"? Contemporaneous with what? We need to give the correct story, not just deny the incorrect one. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a rather obscure note, isn't it? I noticed that ages ago, but neglected to do anything. I'm going to remove the reference until someone can offer an explanation and reference. I think 'contemporaneous' should be 'contemporary'.--Gazzster (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Contemporary" still makes no sense to me.  I don't understand what it's referring to.  I guess it's academic now that the ref's been removed.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What's this crap?
The article states All her constitutional and ceremonial duties in Australia are carried out by the Queen's representative, the Governor-General, in accordance with the Australian Constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen. This is patent nonsense. The Queen's constitutional and ceremonial duties in Australia are carried out by the Queen herself. The Governor-General might be named in the Constitution as the Queen's representative, but this was a polite fiction in 1901 and more so now. His or her constitutional and ceremonial duties are performed in his or her own right. Any functions specifically delegated are minor or notional, such as the Governor-General's role as Commander-in-Chief. --Pete (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. It should be clearer, shouldn't it? The only 'constitutional duty' of the Queen is to appoint a Governor-general.--Gazzster (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "the Crown" as a concept rather than the Queen as an individual should be described as the one with the "constitutional and ceremonial duties". When the Queen is present, she carries out these duties as representative (and wearer) of "the Crown". When the Queen is not present (i.e. most of the time), the Governor-General is the representative of "the Crown". How does that sound? Opera hat (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's quite wrong. The constitutional and ceremonial duties of the Queen and the Governor-General are quite different. The Queen cannot appoint or dismiss an Australian Prime Minister, for example. She doesn't have the power, either in the Constitution, or by virtue of the Royal Powers Act. In fact, the only constitutional function of the Queen that is specifically delegated to the Governor-General is the appointment of Administrators, as per the Letters-Patent. People tend to get confused by the "representative of the Queen" wording, thinking that he acts as her deputy, or as an agent carrying out instructions. In fact most of his powers are specifically given to him in the Constitution in his own right and are not the subject of instruction from anyone. --Pete (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was confirmed by the Constitutional Commission of 1988 (Bob Hawke) which stated:


 * 'Although the Governor-General is the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen.'--Gazzster (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there was a law passed in n54 to allow the Queen to open Parliament, because only the Governor General had the power originally, and the oversight had to be rectified so that HM QE2 could actually do anything in Australia. The GG had all the power and she had none. Petedavo talkcontributions  08:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Royal Powers Act 1953, mentioned above. It allows the Queen to exercise any statutory (but not constitutional) power specifically given to the Governor-General by legislation. In effect, the Queen becomes the Governor-General's representative. The Queen is unable to exercise any of the Governor-General's constitutional powers - she cannot appoint a prime minister, for example - because the constitution specifically gives the royal powers to the Governor-General alone. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting since what this means is that the formal powers of the Queen in Australia are very different from what they are in Canada. I think what happened was that someone took the article of Queen of Canada and copied them over to Australia, without noting the difference.  Added note to this effect. Roadrunner (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

While we're here...
Here's another strange, related passage:

'All institutions of government are said to act under the sovereign's authority; the vast powers that belong to the Crown are collectively known as the Royal Prerogative. Parliamentary approval is not required for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; moreover, the consent of the Crown must be obtained before either of the houses of parliament may even debate a bill affecting the sovereign's prerogatives or interests.'

Strange, because it equates the royal prerogative with 'the vast powers that belong to the Crown'. But these powers are not described. And it gives the impression that the 'vast powers' are exercised through 'all institutions of government' acting under 'the sovereign's authority'. So the text leads one to believe that the Royal Prerogative is the ordinary act of governance. Further, it is stated that 'parliamentary approval is not required for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative'. There is some confusion here. What is meant by the 'R.P'?--Gazzster (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History Section - NPOV
The final few paragraphs of the History section represent an editorial view, not an encyclopedic one. They almost certainly violate WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. I'm referring to the following passages by User:Kbdozz on 21/5/2009. Since these three principles form wikipedias core content policy, i've deleted them. If they are to be reinserted, they should be written from a neutral point of view, with citations to support the assertions.

At the time of the proceedings leading to the referendum, many in government, as well as many with vested interests outside the direct channels of power, had an interest in maintaining the status quo, and a determined effort to stifle the former model progressed; many a government tenure would be lost if a directly-elected head of state were to be instituted. Without a model such as that of the United States to draw on, it might be considered a superfluous argument to question the viability of a directly-elected president - particularly when the U.S. model is backed with a high degree of transparency and separation between the various branches of government as well as its bill of rights (constructs that are sadly lacking in the current Australian political system, and that would be lacking in a republican model so promoted by the official republican group, Australian Republican Movement). Indeed, lost in the debate about republics is the very nature of 'republic'. Many advocates for an Australian republic avoid the understanding that a republic is not a democracy - albeit the former has democratic constructs within its framework. And again, the lack of comparison with the U.S. model - with its tiers of separation and, most importantly, it's bill of rights - places this form of republic in a unique position: one that makes it a limited constitutional republic. As such, the powers of the government are (as the Founding Fathers of the U.S. decreed) severely curtailed. One can understand why just such a model isn't discussed in popular debate in Australia; a complete reversal of powers would be instituted - the people would be empowered, the government, rightfully, constrained. It would appear that, whilst the claim after the republic referendum by the constitutional monarchists that the people of Australia threw out the idea of republic by the 'land-slide' results of the referendum, the actual interpretation of said results needs greater scrutiny: the question of type of republic isn't lost on the people of Australia. Simply keeping the current Westminster system, with its lack of transparency, lack of rights directly and explicitly incorporated into the constitution, merely changing the title and not the intrinsic nature of the political framework, isn't lost on the public. Indeed one could argue that the entire push by all groups on their particular model of Australian republic smacks of paternalism - 'Australians are only capable of being free to an extent; not totally free. . .' - however given the lessons of the last efforts to draw people to a referendum on this topic, the Australian public is a whole lot more savvy and educated about the type of republic wanted.

I am not arguing one way or another with the assertions, but wikipedia is not a forum for advertising ones own political views. Supaluminal (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowned Republic
This sounds like the monarchists' next push. It used to be why bother becoming a republic when we already have an Australian head of state (according to them). Is this their next move? Why bother doing anything when we already are a republic? Jleonau (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is always the alternative argument - if you are already working effectively as Republic there should be no problem with calling yourself a Republic ... but this of course is not the place to argue the respective cases. Lejon (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was raised because the term "crowned republic" appears in the main page; a term only ever used by 'Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy". Jleonau (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes I now see what you mean the term is an opinion not an encyclopaedic fact - and so should be removed .Lejon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits to the intro
A heads up: I deleted some phrasing that might suggest that the states are monarchies in their own right. I know this is contentious: it may be right and it may be wrong. But better to avoid it, especially in an intro. I also deleted a phrase that suggests the Queen is represented in the Australian territories in her own right.Technically this is not correct, as her representatives in the territories are not the Administrators, but the Governor-general, who is ex officio the Queen's representative in the Commonwealth and its external territories.--Gazzster (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee
Are there any plans to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II in Australia in 2012? If so, please add them to the Jubilee article! David (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dare say there will be plans to celebrate her Jubilee. But I suggest Wikipedia notes them when and if they occur.Gazzster (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actual (government) plans - such as public holidays, city status competitions, etc (see the article) - should be noted in advance though. David (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear that there are no such plans at the moment (for good reason considering the year Australia's had), so it's best to just leave it be. When the Australian government announces something, we'll know about it.(Perhaps when she's in the country later this year) -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure there'd be a couple of people beavering away in the Protocol Section of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on this issue as we speak. But at this stage we know not what the government proposes to do, if anything.  We wait.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest Edit
Miesianical edits the section 'Executive', He may very well be right in his edit, but he cites a Canadian court case, in which the court concludes, 'Mr Black's submitted that in Canada, only the Governor-General can exercise the prerogative' How is thios relevant?Gazzster (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 17 has been restored, with what justification I don't know. It remains to be seen how a case decided in Canadian courts translates to being similarly applied in Australian law. Can we discuss that? Otherwise I'll remove the reference again.Gazzster (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a good look through that decision and see precious little of particular relevance to Australia. The Monarchy of Canada is ipso facto a different thing to the Monarchy of Australia, and although there are obviously some common practices, there are some different ones too.  If Mies can explain how it's relevant, maybe we can consider it.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting, Mies! You are staunchly defending this. Australia is not mentioned at all in the source. Why do you think it belongs here, and do you have a source that says so? --Pete (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia
Just want to clarify exactly what this entity is, it appears in the section of personification of the state, personification at law is the incorporation of a legal entity, and as such it would be the proper highest authority for australia, and what relation this has to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth of Windsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.246.26 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

-Same thing in legal terms. Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia..JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Australian Monarchs
This list includes Prince Albert as the consort of Queen Victoria. In so far as Australia is concerned, is this correct? Prince Albert died 40 years before the Commonwealth of Australia was founded. Indeed, Victoria only just makes the list herself - She was Queen of Australia for a mere three weeks at the end of her life!

Not sure if it would be best to "None" here, or "None" with a note that Quen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, had died in 1861. P M C 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessary. Had Victoria remarried, we'd have mentioned her current husband, and there would have been no mention of Albert.  Just because the "position was vacant" in 1901 doesn't mean we have to mention the name of the last incumbent, who died 40 years earlier.  --  03:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Queen is the Government???
Our article cites the RAC, saying The 1993 Republic Advisory Committee concluded that "the Queen" in the constitution means "the Australian Government". Did it really? My copy of the RAC report is out in the garage, but this seems quite unlikely. Anyone want to check? There are also some very dodgy statements scattered though out the article. I've removed a few of the more obvious errors, such as using a Canadian case to describe the situation in Australia. --Pete (talk) Looking at the report of the Republican Advisory Committee, Volume 1, we find this text on p29-30, ''So, as at 1901, references to 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government'. The symbolism matched the substance, To Australians in 1901, the Queen represented the real political power of the British Empire ruled from London. As Queen-Empress, she symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects. Australians however had no right to vote in British general elections and therefore no say in choosing those Ministers who would advise the Queen on Australian matters. ... Nowadays, all of the powers vested in the queen under the Commonwealth Constitution are exercised by the Queen on the advice of Her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. So if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993, it means 'the Australian Government'.'' --Pete (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A few problems:
 * (1) The RAC is wrong. That's not what the Constitution says, and no reputable commentator will tell you otherwise. The Queen gives assent to bills. That's the Queen (through her representative, the GG), not the British government. It was never true that the British government had to assent to federal laws. There are many other examples in the Constitution in which "the Queen" means the Queen or her successors, not the British government. The Queen is named in the Schedule as Queen Victoria. Under the Constitution, the GG as the Queen's representative is advised by Ministers of State appointed in Australia (ss 62 and 64). There is no reference to the Queen being advised by British ministers. Furthermore, as constitutional arrangements can only be changed by referendum, how can the RAC argue that things have changed? And how was the Queen's representative acting in 1972 as the Australian Government.
 * (2) The RAC's claims are nebulous. What does it mean by "mean"???
 * (3) The article distorts what the RAC says.
 * I don't know why it wasn't removed before, but I'm removing it now.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jack, who are you to say that the Republican Advisory Committee are wrong? What you mean, I think, is that you feel your own personal interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct one, so any contrary views must be "wrong".


 * Before and since Federation, the monarch has had very little to do with Australian governmental machinery. She or he signs the occasional bill, and accepts the advice of the relevant minister on appointing the Governor-General. Before 1927, that was the Colonial Secretary - a member of "Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government", you'll note - and after the Statute of Westminster it was the Australian Prime Minister. The monarch didn't pay close attention to Australian legislation and elections and appointments - someone in the Colonial Office kept track of this, just as they did for the colonies and states. The Governor-General represented the British Government at Federation, and that was the reality. Nobody thought otherwise, despite the polite wording of the Constitution. Perhaps you could read through the records of the Constitutional Conventions of the late Nineteenth Century, where the Constitution was drafted and debated and refined.


 * After the Statute of Westminster, the Governor-General ceased to represent the British Government, and after that date British High Commissioners were appointed to the various Dominions. These positions remain to this day in the remaining British Commonwealth Realms, performing the same job as a British Ambassador in other countries, such as Pakistan or South Africa.


 * The Governor-General doesn't do much in the way of representation of the monarchy. At least not in any machinery of government sense. The constitution gives all the relevant powers to the Governor-General in the matter of appointing ministers, issuing writs for elections and so on. The monarch isn't able to do any of this.


 * But, of course, if you wish to believe that Australia is really run out of Buckingham Palace, feel free to believe that fiction. Just don't impose your original research into the article, please. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I was agreeing with you, but apparently not. In any case, the text of the article does not reflect what the RAC said. If the article quotes the RAC, it should be a direct quote of the last sentence: "So if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993, it means 'the Australian Government'". I think from the context the RAC were speaking loosely. It is impossible to take the statement literally. For example, the GG is the Australian government's representative. Was Kerr the Whitlam government's representative? Is the GG the government's representative when he or she signs off on bills? And if that was true, what would be the meaning of a republic??? If you go through the Constitution and insert "the Australian Gvovernment" instead of "the Queen" it becomes incoherent. That's not what they meant.
 * Moreover, the RAC's "analysis" is not supported by reputable authorities. Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory describes the GG as the Queen's representative (p 356). According to this text, controversy erupted when George V initially refused to accept the Australian PM's advice that Isaac Isaacs be appointed GG. An Imperial Conference in 1930 resolved that the King should accept the advice of the ministers in relevant dominion (p 356). The Statute of Westminster didn't come till 1931, and Australia only adopted it during WW2. The Statute of Westminster excluded Australia from the operation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It did not change the Constitution (pp 110-111). The text also states, "The federal executive includes the King or Queen, the Governor General, ministers (including the Prime Minister and Cabinet) and public servants employed by government departments" (p 352). I can find no reference that suggests the "Queen" in the Constitution meant the British government and that it now means the Australian government. However, loosely you interpret this it is seriously misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have mentioned the Balfour Declaration, rather than the SoW. What's your view on the British High Commissioner to Australia? Who represented the British Government in Australia prior to the SoW? --Pete (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that until WW2, Australia did not have an independent foreign policy. The original assumption was that the British Empire had only one interest. But this is really irrelevant to the text at issue. The quotation does not reflect what the RAC reported. The summary report said: "The Queen is the head of state and is represented in Australia by the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen acting on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia". The text here takes one sentence from a lengthy report out of context. As you yourself indicated above, it appears to suggest that the Queen is the Australian government. This text has to go.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing this is again in question, as it was in 2012, let the statement taken from the report as quoted above be given more fully in the article: if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993 it means 'the Australian Government'.  That seems intelligible in its given context, and is one way of explainng the position shortly, but admittedly it fails to give the full picture, with details such as those in the above comments. As often happens, we have a choice: leave out altogether, or tweak in some way to avoid giving a false impression to the more innocent reader looking for unslanted factual information. Would the following be acceptable?
 * The Republic Advisory Committee reported in 1993 that if, in 1901, "the Queen" in the Constitution meant as advised by the British Government, it would now mean as advised by the Australian Government.
 * That is not controversial, and to anyone with some knowledge of the topic, axiomatic. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The RAC meant that the Governor-General represented the British Government at Federation. That was the major part of his job, as it was for all British governors and governors-general. They weren't there to report back to the Queen, they were there as agents of the British Colonial Office. There wasn't even the fiction of "advising the Queen". The early Governors-General received their instructions from and made their reports to Whitehall, not Buckingham Palace.


 * This is where the combination of a primary source (the Constitution) and original research (editors making their own interpretations) comes unstuck. We need to rely on what reliable sources say, and not what we think it means, looking back a century later with post-modern eyes.


 * I'm not at all happy with the current wording. I think it is nonsensical to baldly state that "The Queen" means "the Australian Government". That is not the sense I get from the RAC report. But neither am I comfortable with losing their historical analysis entirely. The early Governors-General represented the distant British Government, but while sometimes the Governor-General represents the Commonwealth Government a couple of kilometres away down Adelaide Avenue, mostly he doesn't. Nowadays the Australian Prime Minister does that job and the Governor-General opens fetes and hands out medals. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Australia had independent status at Versailles, and acted against British wishes at points. But that's beside the point. Around 1930 the relationship changed. Let me quote from the [] artticle: Despite Britain's close relationship with Australia, there was only a High Commissioner from London appointed in 1936. Prior to 1936, the Governor-General of Australia was the official representative of the British government, as well as the crown.


 * It was a given at Federation that the Governor-General was to represent the British Government. But that isn't spelled out in the Constitution. Representing the Queen was a polite way of putting it, and quite unremarkable at the time. At least until the 1926 Imperial Conference, the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster and the concept of a divisible crown. This had to be put into practice at a relatively high level. Edward VIII's abdication was the first practical test – and not without some difficulties! – and there is still some awkwardness, as we see in Canada at the moment. The practical effect in Australia was that the role of the Governor-General changed dramatically, becoming far less important, and leading Whitlam to dismiss Kerr as a "tame viceroy". But the boot was on the other foot and it then became quite clear that the Australian Governor-General was not acting on behalf of, or under instructions from, the Queen, and that he was using his own powers. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The history belongs in the History section, where the RAC is already quoted. We agree that the bald statement is nonsensical, and doesn't reflect what the RAC was saying. So it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, after the revision mentioning this in 'History', let it be taken out of 'Constitutional role and royal prerogative'. Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The view in the Republic Advisory Committee's report in 1993 was that if, in 1901, Victoria, as Queen-Empress, symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects, all of the powers vested in the monarch under Australia's Constitution were now exercised on the advice of the Australian government. Where's that coming from? Do we have a source? --Pete (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From
 * above: "Looking at the report of the Republican Advisory Committee, Volume 1, we find this text on p29-30, So, as at 1901, ''references to 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government'. The symbolism matched the substance, To Australians in 1901, the Queen represented the real political power of the British Empire ruled from London. As Queen-Empress, she symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects. Australians however had no right to vote in British general elections and therefore no say in choosing those Ministers who would advise the Queen on Australian matters. ... Nowadays, all of the powers vested in the queen under the Commonwealth Constitution are exercised by the Queen on the advice of Her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. So if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993, it means 'the Australian Government'. --Pete 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * aricle History section: "As Queen-Empress, Victoria "symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects".''< ref Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, 1993, p29-30 < /ref
 * If there is a problem with my edit, please advise. Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This revised wording fails to include the RAC's view that references to 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government'. This is an important part of the history. The Governor-General at Federation represented the UK Government rather more than the Queen. The Queen was merely the symbolic point through which Whitehall's power was exercised, and in practice the Australian Governor-General, like all other British viceroys throughout the world, communicated with the Colonial Office rather than Buckingham Palace. The British Empire wasn't administered by Queen Victoria and her staff of footmen, but by the British Colonial Secretary and his office.


 * The Australian Governor-General was British, he was appointed by the British Government (through the Queen), and he reported to the British Government. Although advised by Commonwealth ministers, in several important respects he could act without Australian advice. In 1914, for example, it was seen as the Imperial prerogative to declare war, and the then Australian Governor-General declared (under the Defence Act 1903) that a time of war existed without reference to or advice from the Commonwealth government. He took the first formal steps towards war without advice, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, and using his authority under the Defence Act. In theory, he could also decline assent to Australian legislation and refer it to the Queen (acting on advice of her British ministers), and even if he assented, the Queen (again, as advised by her ministers) could disallow legislation under s59.


 * Naturally there was some resentment of this in Australia. When Labor was in power (as it was following the 1914 declaration of war) the many MPs and ministers of Irish birth or descent were not favourably inclined towards toeing the British line. Although the British government pressed strongly for conscription, this was not adopted by Australia. Direct Australian participation was (on an individual basis) a voluntary matter.


 * Likewise in the other Dominions to a greater or lesser degree. The Twentieth Century saw a push by the former colonies to remove themselves completely from British power. Hence the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act and so on, all aimed at removing any exercise of power within Australia by the British Government. That's why we have the "divisible Crown" today. The position of monarch is unchanged, and Elizabeth II sits upon the same throne as Victoria. It is not the royal whim and fancy that guides her hand so much as the advice of ministers.


 * The reason why the RAC's declaration as a matter of logic that today's Queen means the Australian Government is nonsensical is that the Governor-General represented the British Government directly in 1901 (and up until 1936 when the first High Commissioner to Australia was appointed). Where in (say) 1914, Australians wishing to do business with the British government approached the State Governors and the Governor-General, in 2015, Australians wishing to do business with the Commonwealth government approach the Commonwealth government directly. The Governor-General does not represent the Commonwealth Government in anything but an abstract fashion. --Pete (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So I think we need some greater recognition of the RAC's statement that the Governor-General of the Constitution represented the British Government. --Pete (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the part of the article sourced to the RAC report nor the section of the RAC report used as a source for that part of the article makes mention of the governor-general. And there is no such thing as a governor-general of the constitution. It's best we just stick with what the sources say. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more Governor-General in the RAC report. Always happy to provide more, Mies. And the phrase "Governor-General of the Constitution" is used in the sense of the office described by that document, just as there is a "Queen of the Constitution", a "President of the Senate of the Constitution" and so on, meaning the offices described, rather than the actual person. It is a common usage, though perhaps not in Canada, where they tend to take a more practical and hands-on approach to life. --Pete (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In view of the above comments, would it be acceptable to let a sentence be added thus:
 *  To the current text : The view in the Republic Advisory Committee's report in 1993 was that if, in 1901, Victoria, as Queen-Empress, symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects, all of the powers vested in the monarch under Australia's Constitution were now exercised on the advice of the Australian government.
 *  add : In practice, (+) the Queen's representative in Australia,(/+) the Governor-General, represented the British Government directly in 1901 and until 1936, when the first High Commissioner of the United Kingdom to Australia was appointed. ? ( (+)...inserted per comment below.Qexigator (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the current text, and add extra information to the History section.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The two statements are correct and well-sourced, but don't seem to be directly linked. It is the representation of the Queen that is the key point here, because the Constitution was drawn up on the understanding that "representing the Queen", mainly meant "representing the British Government". I suggest, "In practice, the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, represented the British Government directly in 1901 and until 1936…"? --Pete (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Insert made above. Qexigator (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

St George V
The article shows a photograph of the King George Memorial outside Old Parliament House in Canberra. On one side stands a bronze figure of King George, on the other, facing away, is an Art Deco statue of a clean shaven man holding a lance, seated on a rather abstract horse. It is clearly not the late King. Even as a young man, he never looked like this! I removed this image, but Mies has seen fit to restore it, perhaps in line with his vision of the British monarchs as sainted killers of the republican dragons of the modern age, and while I applaud his intent to preserve a photograph of what is one of the coolest statues in Canberra, I would like him to reconsider its place in this article. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's so far been no argument provided for removing the image. It's a monument to George V. That's what the caption says. Nothing says the figure in the image is George V. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, find a picture of the other side, which has a bronze statue of the King. This side is Saint George. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It just seems odd to describe a statue of St George as a memorial to King George V, especially when there's a perfectly good statue of the late Emperor just around the other side. If you really want to include it, Mies, I'll hop on my bike and get a photo for you, which we can then use. Let me know, because he faces east, and a morning shot is the best time. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disallow
The article states, ''Under the constitution, the sovereign also has the power to disallow a bill within one year of the Governor-General having granted Royal Assent. The reference to the Queen in this section was intended as a reference to the monarch acting on the advice of his or her British Cabinet; however, with the passage of the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts, the power to disallow laws technically devolved to the Queen in a personal capacity.'' this is supposedly supported by the Constitution and no other reference is given for what is a bold and personal interpretation. While a bare-faced reading of the Constitution gives all manner of wonderful powers to various people, and the image most often favoured is that of the Governor-General at the head of the Australiam military, in point of fact the power to disallow legislation is one that can only be exercised under advice, and that advice can only come from the Commonwealth government. Just why an Australian Prime Minister would advise the British monarch to disallow Australian legislation is a puzzle, but as it happens, this occasionally becomes a potential, if (say) a controversial piece of legislation is signed into law and an election is held within a twelvemonth. The incoming Prime Minister could advise the monarch to disallow the legislation, especially if he claimed a mandate to do so. Nevertheless, as Mies has defended this statement by restoring it, perhaps he could find a reliable source that supports his startling view? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It's 'Australian Monarch' not 'British Monarch', 2)An outsider to the Government having such powers is a failsafe. I have a copy of the constitution somewhere in my office. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You will find no reference to any Australian monarch in the Australian Constitution!
 * Your personal interpretation of the constitution is as good as anybody else's. What we need is an outside source. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the source that affirms your implication that the Australian monarch's reserve powers have been abolished? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I make no such implication. If you want the statement to remain, find a source. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did indeed. But, regardless, the same reqirement for a source must be applied to the statement you replaced the current one with. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. I've got an annotated constitution somewhere, but with the house full of painters, I'm unable to check at the moment. House Practice gives no information, and Odgers even less. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Skyring was indeed not suggesting that the Sovereign's reserve power in this obscured and untested clause had been abolished. He was testing the text' power to disallow laws technically devolved to the Queen in a personal capacity', after the passage of Westminster. There is no reference or citation for this implication. It is quite proper then that we should debate it. I think we need an authoritive interpretation on that clause. Skyring is also right, however, in stating that even the reserve powers must be exercised upon ministerial advice, except when this is clearly and unequivocally impossible. So he quite justifiably posits the question, since Westminster and the Australia Act 1986, does the clause now mean the Sovereign may disallow legislation given the Royal Assent by the Governor-general, upon the advice of her Australian prime minister? A valid question.Gazzster (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've retrieved my copy of Lumb and Ryan ("Constitution of Australia Annotated", Butterworths, Sydney, 1971) and it says in relation to s59 on p226, "The power of disallowance, while used in relation to Australian Colonial legislation in the nineteenth century is now a dead letter and this section must therefore take its place with other inoperative sections of the Constitution."
 * Now, there may be other opinions, but it seems there are three views, none of them definitive. Lumb and Ryan say that it is defunct, which is possible, as it has never been used and likely never will. Mies says it is the Queen's power alone, which seems utterly bizarre to me - can she really unilaterally disallow an Australian law she personally does not like? My opinion, and it is just that, is that it has the same status as the Queen's only other power under the Constitution, to appoint the Governor-General, and it can only be exercised on advice - as indeed it would have been on the advice of the British Government before the Statute of Westminster - and that advice can now only come from the Commonwealth. But we don't have a reliable source for any opinion but the first, which has a constitutional power effectively terminated by a couple of law professors. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking further, on p30 of the Report of the Republic Advisory Committee 1993, I find this footnote: "In fact, no Commonwealth statutes were ever disallowed. The practice of disallowance was expressly abandoned by agreement between the United Kingdom and the Dominions at an Imperial Conference in 1930. The section still remains in the Constitution however and, conceivably, could be used by a Prime Minister to disallow the previous twelve months' legislation if he or she so wished." --Pete (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. It seems then that this entry might simply mention s.59, noting that it has nevewr been used and seems a dead letter.Gazzster (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Moribund" might better describe the situation. Maybe a Prince Charming will come along to breathe life into it, probably not. Personally I find its presence in the Constitution repugnant, but no government has bothered to put it to referendum, so there it is. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is notoriously difficult to alter the Constitution, which makes government stable yet hampered at the same time.Gazzster (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That tricky Constitution again.
Looking at the article, I see in the lede: ''The present monarch is Elizabeth II, styled Queen of Australia, who has reigned since 6 February 1952. She is represented in Australia by the Governor-General, in accordance with the Australian Constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen.''

The Letters-Patent issued in 1984 and since, seem to be okay on this point, but the Constitution is not. The Queen of Australia is not represented by the Governor-General, according to the Australian Constitution, which overrides any other legislation or proclamation, save for those few instances allowed for in the Constitution. So I'm dubious about the Letters-Patent as well.

And this brings me to the underlying problem with this and related articles. It is all very well to talk of a "Monarchy of Australia" and and "Australian Royal Family", but lets be frank here. It's the British monarchy we are talking about and saying that the same people are also Canadian and New Zealand and Bermudan royals as well is really just a fudge. Do these articles actually serve any useful purpose in providing information, or are they just an accumulation of fluff? --Pete (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reference to the Constitution. This article is about "the Queen of Australia", not constitutional fact. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but the Constitution does specifically state the GG is the representative of the Queen. This whole Queen of Australia thing is more complex and is covered in numerous other areas including the Australia Act. The Reference to the Constitution is valid. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Constitution does not say that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen of Australia. There was no such title at Federation and the document has not been amended to cover this. The Queen is certainly Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom, but we cannot say that the Constitution says something it does not. Some different phrasing is required. --Pete (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

-No; it might not say it in the constitution, but the 1973 Royal Titles Act does say she's Queen of Australia.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, you know my opinion on this topic. Think about it logically. The Constitution of 1901 is the living document, which, here and now, is the foundation of the Australian government. That government is a parliamentary democracy headed by a Governor-general who appoints ministers to govern in the name of He Majesty ther Queen of Australia. The first is a truth of law. The second is a truth of fact. Therefore, the Constitution gives authority to the GG to govern in the name of the Queen of Australia. No matter the exact letter of the covering clause (Which btw, is not part of the Constitution proper) a fact cannot be argued with. Therefore, Wikipedia may use the Constitution to reference the Queen of Australia. The Constitution is not 'tricky' at all.Gazzster (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian English
In Australian English, titles such as Premier, Governor and Governor-General are typically capitalised when referring to a specific person or office. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow the Wikipedia manual of style, please; WP:JOBTITLES, specifically. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mr Canada. I suggest you follow your own advice and the Manual of Style. No offence, but your use of lower case for these titles grates on my Australian eye. It's not what is commonplace here. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal preferences don't trump the Manual of Style, which was composed by community consensus. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why I referred you to the Manual of Style. If you think that national varieties of English have no place in Wikipedia, this is the wrong place to debate your view. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I first referred you to the part of the Manual of Style that matters here. If you want it changed to reflect your preferences, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mies is right, Pete. A person's title which is not at the beginning of a sentence or subject title is not capitalised unless it identifies a particular person. Eg., 'Premier Weatherill' addressed the Parliament, but not 'the premier addressed the Parliament'. In the latter, premier is a common noun. In the former, a proper noun.Gazzster (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be the way things are in Somalia, but not in Australia. Check Google for the exact phrase. In Australian English, we usually capitalise these titles. --Pete (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm Australian, cobber.Gazzster (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As am I. The overall flavour is what counts here. On your very own example you were shown to be wrong. If you cannot provide examples of the usage you support as a national variety of English, then it comes down to your personal opinion, and as Mies notes above, that doesn't count against wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be buggered. You're right. I doff my hat to you, Sir. Thanks for educating me.Gazzster (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But we dont 'always'.Gazzster (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But hold fast! 'Governor and governor-general
 * Lowercase when used generically; uppercase when referring to a specific governor. State governors will meet the Queen in September.Australia’s Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, opened the new building.'Monash University http://www.monash.edu.au/about/editorialstyle/editing/capitalisation.html.Gazzster (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When referring to a specified position, we capitalise. Here, the position is the Australian Governor-General (because we aren't talking about governors-general in um, general). The same goes for "The Queen" or "The Minister for Foreign Affairs", regardless of who occupies the position. We can say, "a minister for foreign affairs" when we are talking about one of many, but not a specific one, but we capitalise when talking about a specific position or individual. It's just manners. On that note, I've raised the subject here. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. But for the edits in question, 'governor-general' does not refer to a particular governor-general.Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where we're each from is irrelevant. Nobody has the inherent right to dispense with the Manual of Style because he or she doesn't like it.
 * And yes, Gazzster, you're correct; the general references to the post of governor-general (i.e. not the current incumbent of the office) are what were decapitalised, as per the Manual of Style. Ditto for "premier", "prime minister", "constitution", and the like. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If 'australian governor-general' were being edited then, yes, capitalisation would be needed. But the edit is 'governor-general', and standing alone, as it does, without any specification, no capitalisation is demanded by any style of English. And to avoid ambiguity we find 'Governor-general of Australia', in correct capitals, immediately before.Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we refer to a specific office - and in this article we are not referring to any other office but the Australian Governor-General - then we capitalise. As per the examples given:
 * The Governor-General's website
 * DEEWR media release
 * The reserve powers of the Governor-General
 * Parliamentary Education Office
 * Australia.gov.au "Governors-General"
 * The sites above all refer to the specific office, not the specific individual. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your beef is with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I find that the policy varies according to the nationality, with similar articles having different systems. For example, the following articles (in semi-alphabetical order) capitalise the titles of offices:
 * Government of Australia,
 * Federal government of the United States,
 * Government of South Africa,
 * Politics of the Republic of Ireland,
 * Politics of Israel
 * Politics of the People's Republic of China
 * Government of France,
 * Politics of Italy
 * Federal government of Mexico,
 * Politics of New Zealand,
 * Cabinet of Belgium
 * Politics of Sweden,
 * Politics of Cuba
 * Government of India,
 * Constitution of Turkey
 * Federal government of Brazil,
 * Government of Pakistan and
 * Government of the United Kingdom (not an exhaustive list by any means) all seem to use the system of capitalising specific offices that Australia does.
 * You will note that these articles deal with the government apparatus in general, not specific individuals or a specific government. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mistakes made elsewhere are not justification for making them here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But when a title is capitalised without a name it is specific to a particular person. Thus, for example, 'The President' refers to the person who currently is the encumbant of that office. 'The Prime Minister' refers to the person who occupies the post of prime minister. So, we write, 'The Governor-general attended the state dinner', meaning that a particular person attended the state dinner. Gazzster (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be "the Governor-General attended the state dinner"; but, otherwise, yes. And, when speaking generically about the post of governor-general, it would be something like "it is a common responsibility of the governor-general to attend state dinners." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be the case throughout Wikipedia. When discussing systems of national government, most such articles capitalise the office title. "The Vice-President succeeds the President in the event of death, incapacity, madness or pregnancy", for example. It's all over Wikipedia. I can see a lot of work for those who care about such things, and possibly a lot of conflict from the locals who disagree with the Canadian invasion. --Pete (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the examples you cite as proof that your way is the right way and the Manual of Style is meaningless were inconsistent in the way upper and lower case letters were used for common and proper nouns and titles; they each sometimes adhered to the MoS and sometimes didn't. (Hence, you've since gone around making a series of edits to them with the identical edit summary "for consistency"; the consistency established following, of course, not the MoS but rather your preferred way of doing things, which you said was the "Australian way", which thus makes your "Canadian invasion" comment seem ironically hypocritical.) They therefore fail as support for either side in this dispute. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It must be wonderful to be always in the right! But in this case you are wrong. Where there was an overwhelming consistency, with one or two outliers, I cleaned them up. That's exactly what I like doing. makes me feel useful. Makes wikiwork fun. There were other articles where there was less consistency, and feeling your unblinking eye upon me, I let them stay as the local editors intended. You probably shouldn't read too much into my clicking articles at random and give them a quick shufti. Not really any sort of strategy, really. I just bounced around the world. As usual. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There has only ever been one Elizabeth
Elizabeth is NOT "Elizabeth II" as there has only ever been one Elizabeth in the right of Australia. Therefore, in the context of Australia, shouldn't she simply be referred to as Elizabeth, not Elizabeth II?
 * We follow tradition on this. The UK has only ever had one Queen named Elizabeth, and that's the current one, but we call her Elizabeth II. Go figure. --Pete (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The numbers after a monarchs name do not always reflect the number of monarchs of that name-for example, there's only been 9 Kings of Sweden called Carl, and yet the current King is Carl XVI (sixteenth)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Royal Styles & Titles Act 1973 (Commonwealth of Australia) sets forth her title as 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and her other Realms and Territories'.http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004C00605 So she is Elizabeth II of Australia. It is not so strange - the Queen is the second Elizabeth to sit upon the throne that gave rise to the throne of Australia. There is a certain logic is preserving the same post-nominal as she enjoys in the United Kingdom. But the point is she was proclaimed Elizabeth II of Australia, and so she is.Gazzster (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, her title in the Commonwealth of Australia actually consists of 17 words; so, abbreviating it to "Elizabeth II" drops 15 of them. And the basis for dropping them is just that abbreviations are more efficiently convenient. Accordingly, an even more convenient abbreviation would be "Elizabeth" (more efficient by a sixteenth). This would not work as a more convenient abbreviation in the UK, obviously, because Elizabeth was the name of another English queen 450 years ago. However, the even more efficient abbreviation surely makes good sense in Australia.110.143.242.138 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We could drop the name entirely and just call her the Queen, which is already in common use. Any problems could be dealt with on the already-existing dab page. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That may work in most places in the article. The second paragraph has: The present monarch is Elizabeth II, styled Queen of Australia,... represented in Australia by the governor-general, in accordance with the Australian constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen. The links to the LPs seem to be broken, so not sure whether they are Elizabeth's or Victoria's. Specifically, would "The Queen" be as good as "Elizabeth II" in
 * the captions?
 * the List of Australian monarchs"?
 * the "Timeline of monarchs"?
 * "Royal presence and duties"?
 * "Australian Defence Force"?
 * "History"?
 * Probably in most or all of those, it could be "the Queen". Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead wth this section by section. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearing up the Table listing monarchs
An editor (a member of WikiProject Australia etc.) has misguidedly made a good faith revert. What is to discuss? The table is headed "List of Australian monarchs", and if GGs and PMs who served under the monarch are to be mentioned, once per monarch is enough, leaving details to be found in the links, if wanted. The mere repetition of names clutters without explaining. It confuses two sorts of information, does not help the reader and spoils the otherwise well-constructed and informative Table. There is a list of GGs at Governor-General of Australia and of PMs at Prime Minister of Australia,now added to the miscellany of "See alsos" .[]  Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The table including the correct flow of PM's is easy to read and looks fine. When I created the table I looked at the both ways and decided on including the correct flow.Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it looks fine to you, as the creative artist, but you have not answered the points of criticism. Wikipedia articles are not merely to satisfy authors' opinions of their own work, and, unlike a blog-type website, we are not required to accept content at their own estimation. Qexigator (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay then; Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The table is headed "List of Australian monarchs", and if GGs and PMs who served under the monarch are to be mentioned, once per monarch is enough, leaving details to be found in the links, if wanted. - There are a couple of example's of how this is a floored statement, chiefly Sir Robert Menzies who served under two monarchs (George VI and Elizabeth II) Menzies had two separate stints as PM with four PM's serving between the stints. where would you mention Menzies, once per monarch is lovely and all but he served for a large chuck og George VI's early term as King and was his last PM and Elizabeth II's first.
 * The mere repetition of names clutters without explaining. - No I don't agree, between George Reid and Joseph Cook, Alfred Deakin served as PM on two separate stints and Andrew Fisher another two separate stints. The inclusion of the the full compliments of names helps with the flow of factual history.
 * It confuses two sorts of information - I don't understand this statement?
 * The table is about each successive monarch. "Once per monarch" = one who, like Menzies, is PM in one or more of the reigns is mentionable once in each reign. The table is not about the succession of PMs /GGs who would be better, and actually are, listed elsewhere. The mere repetition of the names of PMs clutters without explaining why to the reader, who does not know what is in your mind and should not be expected to guess. Those are the two sorts of information: one, a listing of monarchs, the other listings of PMs and GGs. Please let the table be kept simple, and free from conflating the two sorts of information. If combined in one format, a well constructed timeline would serve better for communicating the information. Qexigator (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Qex here. Once per monarch is enough; the fields are supposed to list each of the prime ministers who served under each monarch, not the succession of occupants of the office of prime minister. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Caption for image of the Act
The caption should be "Australia Act 1986 (United Kingdom) document, located in Parliament House, Canberra, and bearing the signature of Elizabeth II as Queen of the United Kingdom." as in: she cannot sign a UK act as the queen of australia. The image of the Act is identical to that in Australia Act 1986 where it is explained that the Governor-General of Australia assented to the Australia Act (Cth) "In the name of Her Majesty" on 4 December 1985 and that Queen Elizabeth assented to the Australia Act 1986 (UK) on 7 February 1986. Given that the image is of the UK act, which was assented to in the UK Parliament by Elizabeth as Queen of UK, her sign manual on the copy shown in the image authenticates that copy of the document, not her assent to the UK Act itself, nor to the Act passed in Australia to which her assent had been given for her by the GG. Qexigator (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

+ See also Australia Act 1986 (Cth): "Queen Elizabeth presented Prime Minister Bob Hawke with an original of the Proclamation, and the Assent original of the Australia Act (UK)." --Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a really well sourced response and it have convinced me, I have made your requested change. Have a good day. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The timeline is:
 * 4 December 1985 - the Governor-General of Australia assents to the Australia Act (Cth) "In the name of Her Majesty" the Queen of Australia
 * 7 February 1986 - Elizabeth II as Queen of the UK assents to the Australia Act 1986 (UK)
 * 2 March 1986 - visiting Australia,
 * Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia signs a proclamation that the Australia Act (Cth) would come into force at 5 am Greenwich Mean Time on the following day and presents Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke with the signed copy of the proclamation
 * Elizabeth II as Queen of the UK (and maybe as Queen of Australia, but it hardly matters since this is not an exercise of legislative power) presents Hawke with the Assent original of the UK Act, which is now in Parliament House, Canberra
 * 1990 The UK Parliament legislates to permit one of the record copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which had been on loan to Australia since the Bicentennial 1988, to be kept by Australia, where it is now in the National Archives.
 * --Wikiain (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)