Talk:Monarchy of Australia

Should the governor-general be in the top infobox

Proposed addition to infobox

King of Australia
Federal
Coat of arms of Australia
Incumbent
Charles III since 8 September 2022
Governor-General, David Hurley
Details
Style	His Majesty
Heir apparent	William, Prince of Wales

An editor has attempted twice to include the governor-general (David Hurley) into the infobox of this page, with King Charles III. I disagree with inclusion, as this page is about the Australian monarchy. We have a separate page on the Governor-General of Australia & that's where the governor-general's image/etc belongs. We don't include the GG in the infobox at the Canadian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy etc pages. So we shouldn't here. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If we include the GG, we should include the governors as well...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just have the monarch in the infobox, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. ....just one. Moxy- 03:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to repeat my argument for change I made in the edit box, as this page is about the role of the monarchy as an institution in Australia, rather than the on the role of the monarch as an individual and as the GG performs most of the roles of the monarch and is the individual that does most royal thing in the Australian context, I thought it would be a good idea to include a picture at the top. Maybe a seperate infobox or other picture would be useful to emphasise the difference? Safes007 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not everything can be in the infobox, and the Governor-General for all their roles is not the Monarch. There is a page at Governor-General of Australia which has the Governor-General image in the infobox, but not the Monarch's. CMD (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely unnecessary and it splits off the details at the bottom of the infobox from the person it relates to at the top of the infobox which is problematic. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

1939

"In 1939, the Australian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942". Can something "emerge" with retrospective effect? Do reliable sources give 3 September 1939 as the date when a separate Australian monarchy was created? If not we shouldn't be splitting George VI's reign into two separate lines. ITBF (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Anne Twomey addresses this in her book The Australia Acts 1986 at 457 to 461. She argues that the Crown became divided when the monarch received advice directly from dominion ministers, which occurred at the latest by 1930, when this was clarified at an Imperial conference to be the effect of the Balfour declaration and the conference in 1926. However, she also notes other dates and theories cited by others including the date on which Australia became an independent nation, which could be the date when Australia was able to obtain its complete independe from the UK in 1931 (following the UK staute of westminster), when Australia was internationally recognised as independent (which occurred gradually from the 30s to 40s) or on full independence with the Australia Acts of 1986.

I would suggest changing the date to 1930, but with a footnote or link back to the paragraph about the emergence of the separate Crown saying the date is subject to debate and was ultimately an evolutionary process with no one fixed date. Safes007 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move Wikipedia:Snowball clause. (closed by non-admin page mover) Moxy🍁 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Monarchy of Australia → Monarch of Australia – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also a better sounding and better fitting name. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• These are different topics. The monarch is the individual, the monarchy is the system. CMD (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree for the above reasons. If you look at the first reference, it describes Australia as a monarchy, a federation and a democracy. Safes007 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move - as we've got Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Denmark, Monarchy of Belgium etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose the change would be inconsistent with similar articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – The article is more about the institution than the office (insofar as one can make that distinction with the monarchy). Graham (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Mellk (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per consistency with Monarchy of the United Kingdom and Monarchy of Canada. cookie monster 755 23:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image used of King Charles III

Since the official Australian portrait of His Majesty, King Charles III, has been released some time ago now I was wondering wether or not it should be the image used as opposed to the current image. I am unsure if the image meets the criteria for being uploaded to Wikipedia, if it does not, well that settles that, but if it does, should we not use it instead? here is a link to where the image can be

found: https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/official-australian-portraits-king-and-queen

Cheers in advance. Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

We need a commercial copyright release......Official Australian portraits of The King and Queen says The portraits cannot be used for commercial purposes and cannot be used in merchandising, advertising or for other non-editorial purposes. Moxy🍁 05:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Commonwealth Coat of arms versus King's flag in infobox

My edit to replace the Commonwealth Coat of Arms with the King's Flag was reverted by @Knowledgework69, but I disagree with the reasons given for the reversion.

The King of Australia is not "a federal position of the Commonwealth of Australia". They act equally at the state and federal level. The office is characterised as either a single monarchy (in which the monarch receives advice from both state and federal ministers according to the Constitution) or a personal union of 6 state and 1 federal crowns (see Twomey (2010), The Australia Acts 1986 pg 456–479 as mentioned under the heading Emergence of a separate Crown).

The Commonwealth Coat of Arms however represents specifically the authority of the Commonwealth and is used to represent the authority and ownership of the federal government. This is an inappropriate symbol to represent an office that acts at both a state and federal level.

Australia also differs from most other Commonwealth realms as it is a federation. Canada is also a federation, but its arms are specifically those of the King, not the federal government. Unlike Canada, Australia never created distinct arms of dominion to represent the monarchy and the nation as a whole. You could also compare the situation to the UK, which has a slightly different coat of arms for Scotland and this is displayed equally in the infobox. As there are six state coats of arms, displaying them all would be inappropriate; hence the need for a different symbol.

The symbol in infobox should be both distinctive to Australia and represent specifically the topic of the page (being the monarchy of Australia). I believe the King's flag is the best symbol that fulfils these criteria. Safes007 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

All the Commonwealth Realm monarchy pages have the arms of the country in the infobox. I realize Australia is unique in many ways - but the arrangement you speak of cannot really be represented by a single symbol. However, because of Australia's unique position I agree that the King's Flag for Australia is most appropriate for the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need either in the infobox - what purpose does it actually serve other than decoration? The coat of arms is overused on Wikipedia in my view, it doesn't need to appear on every Australian government article. FWIW I think the King's Flag would be more appropriate if a symbol is used, which is in line with e.g. the governor-general's article and what seems to be most head of state articles. I T B F 📢 04:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that coats of arms are often overused, but I think a symbol is useful in this case because otherwise we'd just have a picture of Charles which doesn't quickly demonstrate what the page is about. Some kind of picture of symbol that quickly identifies the topic of the page is useful I think and this flag is the only symbol I can think of that identifies the monarchy of Australia with any kind of specificity. Safes007 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Use what was in the infobox all these years, the Coat of Arms of Australia. Why suddenly change it now? GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The arguments I made above are why I think we should change it now. Do you disagree with them or do you think the current symbol has advantages I haven't mentioned? Safes007 (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Per consistency with the UK & the other Commonwealth realms' monarchy pages, we should stick to using the coat of arms. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think consistency across pages is beneficial in and of itself. The consistency should create some kind of benefit (for example in making comparisons easier). However, I don't think that applies here due the differences between the relationship of the Australian monarchy and the Commonwealth coat of arms versus that of other countries and their coat of arms. We shouldn't trying to present a similarity between countries that doesn't exist in reality. Safes007 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Safes007 I see your point but I don’t see the need to replace the coat of arms, the coat of arms represents the monarch of Australia in their capacity as Sovereign and Head of State of the Commonwealth of Australia, the coat of arms is granted under the authority of a Royal Warrant. The coat of arms also incorporates the 6 states in the shield at the centre. The great seal of Australia is the monarchs personal seal in the Commonwealth of Australia used to denote official documents and such, this seal has the coat of arms of the commonwealth in it. Fundamentally I do not see it necessarily to change the coat of arms to the royal standard as the coat of arms is a widespread symbol used to symbolise the monarch in their capacity as Sovereign of Australia Knowledgework69 (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you believe the coat of arms "represents the monarch of Australia in their capacity as Sovereign and Head of State"? The arms don't appear prominently anywhere on the website of the governor-general or the sites of the state governors (the most prominent symbol I can see is a tudor crown). PMC describes the arms as "the formal symbol of the Commonwealth of Australia" and that they signify "Commonwealth authority and ownership". If you have a source that supports this claim, I'd be happy to read it; but personally I've only seen the arms used by federal government institutions.

Additionally, the arms may be present on the Great Seal of Australia, but that seal is only used by the monarch for federal documents. There are separate seals for the states. The Commonwealth Coat of Arms don't appear on the state seals, which suggest those arms are more a symbol of the federal government, not the monarchy itself.

Also, the arms may have been granted by royal warrant, but that itself implies that the arms are something different from the monarchy itself. The monarch was granting arms to a separate institution that at the time existed under the broader sovereignty of the indivisible British Crown. Royal warrants are used to grants to all kinds of people, institutions or companies arms so that by itself doesn't imply that the arms the warrant granted represent the monarchy. Safes007 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See I do get what your saying, but at the same time the commonwealth coat of arms symbolises the combined territories (something to do with the points on the star incorporates the territories or something ill see if i can find the link) and of course the shield contains the 6 states, I feel this is the most appropriate symbol for the info box as it is the symbol of Australia of which the King is the sovereign and persona of the nation (from definition of head of state).

- The king is sovereign of the Order of Australia (Which includes the coat of arms of Australia)

- The king is holder of the great seal (federal) which includes the coat of arms of Australia

- The king is the head of the federal executive (Section 61 of the Constitution, the symbol of the federal executive is the coat of arms of Australia)

- The King is the fount of justice at a federal level and in most states (Rex vs etc) The symbol of the federal judiciary is the coat of arms of Australia

- The parliament of Australia sits under the Authority of the King (Maces), and while the Governor General handles Royal Assent the Constitution does allow the King to overrule this, and there is also a procedure where if the GG doesn't sign a bill it can be reserved to the king, the king is the paramount (although i must stress very rarely if ever used) authority of parliament as they can override the GG the symbol of the Parliament of Australia, is the coat of arms of Australia. (I am aware this legislative point has less ground then others)

Fundamentally the King is a federal office, in the states he is not referred to as the King of New South Wales, he is the King of Australia, see proclamation, yes he does have governors in each of the states, but they are appointed by the Monarch of Australia (a federal office) Australia Act 1986 Section 7 outlines this. It is a federal office appointing an official in a state. Ultimately the King is the Head of the Commonwealth and it is appropriate to use the Coat of Arms to display thisKnowledgework69 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Side note I mean head of the commonwealth in the context of the Australian commonwealth, not the commonwealth of nations Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

While the coat of arms is a good symbol of Australia, that doesn't necessarily mean they are a good symbol of the Australian monarchy. E.g. the Australian flag, green and gold and the boxing kangaroo are good Australian symbols but don't represent the monarchy. Conversely, the Tudor Crown represents the monarchy but isn't a good symbol for Australia as a whole. You would expect the head of state to use a symbol to represent them and the nation as a whole, I just don't see any evidence of that in Australia. The coat of arms is everywhere on the royal page of the UK and the governor-general of Canada and New Zealand. However, those symbols aren't used by the Australian governor-general or state governors.

You mention the fact that the King (or maybe the governor-general) is the holder of the great seal, the head of the federal executive council, the fount of justice in federal courts and is a necessary component of federal parliament. All these institutions use the Commonwealth coat of arms. However, the King also holds the state seals, is head of state executive councils, the fount of justice in state courts and the constituent part of most state parliaments. When the King acts in this capacity, the Commonwealth coat of arms does not appear. This again suggests the Commonwealth coat of arms represents the federal government, not the monarchy or the nation as a whole.

The coat of arms does appear on the order of Australia, but the Order booklet refers to the enamelled crown as the signifier of "the position of The Sovereign as Head of the Order", not the Commonwealth coat of arms (pg 13).

The states may use the same title for the monarch as that used federally, but this is only by mutual consent. If the monarch was a federal office, why would WA and SA legislate the monarch's title independently? Twomey notes at pg 475 that it is arguable that the states now have the power to determine their own royal style and title in respect of the monarch's relationship with their state.

Section 7 of the Australia Act only refers to "Her Majesty", not "Queen of Australia". This is because the drafters deliberately left the federal versus state nature of the office ambiguous. Twomey discusses this in the source referred to under Emergence of a separate Crown. When the Act was drafted a British legal adviser sought to clarify this, but was rebuffed and noted "[The Australians] prefer, however, not to be asked which Australian Queen is involved - Queen of Australia or Queen of the State. There are obvious differences in view out here" (p 471). Twomey concludes that section 7 either established separate Crowns in each of the states or transformed the Crown into a federal crown that encompasses both the state and federal level of government (p 475). There are currently differing views on the topic: see the discussion at pg 85 of the Australian republic report. If the office was a federal office, there would be no need to consider whether the crown could exist at a state level when the country became a republic federally.

At the end of the day, we are trying to find a symbol that represents the monarchy of Australia, not Australia as a whole or one level of government. The only symbols I can think of that do this specifically are the crown and the King's flag. You can make the argument that the coat of arms also represents the monarchy as they are the head of state and therefore it is legally appropriate that they also use the same arms as the national government, but I don't think you need to when you have these (to my mind) more obvious symbols around. When you look on TV, the symbols that surround Charles during his royal visit are mostly the crown (on his number plates or on menus for lunches) and the flag (on buildings and vehicles that the monarch is in). As the crown is shared with the other realms, then I think the flag is better to represent the page is about the Australian monarchy, in both their state and federal capacity. Safes007 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reach a compromise of both the coat of arms and the flag as seen on pages such as President of the United States? As I do see your point as the royal standard is a crucial symbol of the monarchy, but then again we must also reflect the monarchs position as Head of the Nation. Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also the coat of arms appears on levels of the order of Australia from companion up (Companion, Former Knight Level which still has members, Chancellor and Sovereign) Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the current positioning of the coat of arms demonstrates the King is the head of the nation. The coat of arms is positioned in exactly the same as the infoboxes for subordinate positions such as the prime minister and other ministers. Compare for instance the UK, which distinguishes between the simpler arms for the government versus the full arms for the royals. The pages for the Canadian PM and King also seems to only use its arms for the royals, not the individual officer holders. In my mind, the King's flag would better demonstrate the position as head of the nation by distinguishing the office from lower positions. By including all the symbols of the states surrounded by the ermine border of the Commonwealth, the flag seems to adequately demonstrate the monarch's national role in the same way the coat of arms does. Safes007 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the flag is an important symbol, but I believe i have found something that puts this all to rest somewhat, when a letters patent proclamations or commission of a governor general is issued in the by the sovereign or in their name in the realm of Australia it is affixed with the coat of arms of the commonwealth at the head of the page, in Canada and the UK for example this would be where the royal arms of the sovereign would sit as letters patent and proclamations and such are direct exercises of royal prerogative and the monarchs powers under the consitution.

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-logs/foi-2024-055.pdf - This is the commission to appoint a Governor General issued by Elizabeth II at the Court of St James (The official seat of the throne) on the 12th of March 2014, the commonwealth arms are used in place of royal arms confirming their use by the monarch.

Below are letters patent also issued under the authority of the Monarch of Australia, where the coat of arms of the commonwealth have been used in place of wear royal arms would be.

https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/362699/letters-patent-royal-commission.pdf

https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2024-09/dvsrc-letters-patent-7-december-2023.pdf

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-logs/foi-2024-055.pdf Knowledgework69 (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Lieutenant Governor's Commission of Appointment, 2006.jpg - There is a Canadian commission appointing a Lt Governor, Issue by Queen Elizabeth II, Canadian royal arms above page

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuEFnvtWIAAMXLb?format=jpg&name=medium - There is a UK warrant appointing a Counsellor of State, issued by King Charles III, British Royal Arms above page

Just to show what I was going on about

@Safes007 Knowledgework69 (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that in Canada, Lieutenant Governors are technically subordinates of the Governor-General. They are appointed by the Canadian governor general on the advice of the prime minister (see Lieutenant Governor (Canada)). In Australia, the states have always maintained a direct link to the monarch and the governor is appointed directly by the monarch. The governor-general is merely the first among equals of the royal representatives who acts in the federal sphere. For example, in New South Wales the appointment of the governor is done by the monarch using the public seal of state of New South Wales (see sections 9A and 9H of the constitution of New South Wales). According to The Constitution of New South Wales (2004) (978-1-86287-516-6) pg 682, this seal depicts the British royal arms and the NSW coat of arms. It does not include the commonwealth coat of arms. See also the letters patent for the Victorian Yoorok royal commission, made in the name of King Charles III which uses the Victorian state seal. Also see the appointment of the Tasmanian Governor, which is made using the state seal. Safes007 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

References