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

[Iluvbertie]

According to our Prime Minister William would be 'unsuitable' as GG because he isn't an Australian citizen (a sentiment with which I fully agree).

Prince William not suitable as G-G: PM

The leader of the opposition, Mr Rudd, also opposes William as GG.

Party time if Wills becomes G-G, says Rudd | The Daily Telegraph


With these attitudes there are two chances of William becoming GG - Buckley's and none (and as we all know Buckley had no chance).

PS this is an old saying which essentially means that there is absolutely no chance at all ever of this ever happening.


In addition to these reports I have accessed a couple of online polls (SkyNews Australia Sky News Australia - [Poll Results] and the Sydney Morning Herald The Sydney Morning Herald: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Australia's leading newspaper. sites which at 1.48p.m. on Friday afternoon Australian time are reporting approximately 60% opposition from those voting in these polls - down from much higher in both cases earlier in the day I might add). On neither of these sites can a person vote more than once from the same access point but of course there are ways around this I am sure so these aren't that scientific a poll but I thought I would report them anyway.


This last link is to the Daily Telegraph from Sydney and includes comments from a range of Aussies. It is clear from these comments that some people would support the idea and others wouldn't (as well as the fact that many Aussies need some educating about our system of government and the role of the monarch within it but... that's another story altogether!).

Reader's Comments: PM okay on porn, not Wills - The Daily Telegraph

 

[Skydragon]

Let's not forget where this rumour originated - Tina Brown. How on earth would she or anyone know it is Williams secret desire. This woman makes up facts as she goes along!

 

[Roslyn]

This G-G stuff is certainly a surprise to me. I read the Herald today and didn't see anything about it.

What is it with these Windsor boys? They seem to think that being G-G of Australia is some sort of work experience opportunity for them while they wait for a real job.

As a monarchist I am of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school who likes the ongoing link to our English past and resents the republicans' pressure to change. However I certainly do not believe that the RF is in any way intrinsically better than the rest of us, and I am more than a little miffed - if the story is true - that young William might believe that he has some sort of entitlement to claim the office of G-G, which it seems his father may also have believed when he was young, and may do better in the role than one of our own. If he feels that way I find that it more than a little patronising, and am also irritated that the story will provide fodder for the republicans.

 

[Polly]

It seems like some corners of the media (not sure which ones, honestly) have been hinting at PW being a GG for some years now. Maybe the Republican press put it out there to egg on their perception of him as alcoholic, lazy, whatever, or maybe the royalist press put it out there for whatever reason, pro-Commonwealth sentiment? The royalists might argue it would be a good move, showing the royals to be "reaching out" or something to Australia.
It can't be good, though, for someone in direct line to the throne to have a GG job. Maybe Harry or one of the Queen's other grandchildren, fine, but PW heir presumptive to be GG? The royals love precedent, are guided by it, and there is no precedent for that, not a direct heir.

Two things: first, none of the press, Republican or otherwise, has ever painted William as alcoholic or lazy. Anything published about him is always lifted from the British press, directly.

Second, it's quite true that Prince Charles, the Heir, did indeed want to become Governor General of Australia and was politely rejected by the Labor government of the day.

Personally, I would be opposed to William, or any other royal, being appointed as Governor General. Even our current PM, an avowed monarchist, has not welcomed the idea. However, it's not clear that William has ever contemplated such an appointment but the author did get it right about Charles.

 

[Princess Robijn]

Is it in the law that the Governor General of Australia has to be Australian??

 

[love_cc]

I don't think there is a sentence like this in the constitution. But after dismissing Australian PM Gough Whitlam by the former government general sir John Kerr in 1975 under a constitution crisis, Australian public and the government were quite outraged and determined to then appoint Australians as government general not a British person. The dismiss of Prime Minister caused a Governor-General, using reserve powers

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Then was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester the last British HRH to be a Governor General of anywhere? I can't remember .... no, it was HRH The Duke of Windsor who was the last, wasn't he GG of Bahamas or something?

 

[WindsorIII]

Is it in the law that the Governor General of Australia has to be Australian??

I don't think its the law that they have to be Austrailian but more of a tradition the current Prime Minister would like to go back too. I think the tradition was altered for the Queen and for Charles, and that he would like to see it go back to the way it always was before them. This is the take I got on it from what I have read.

Here is a quote from PM John Howard:

"Although I remain a supporter of our current constitutional arrangements, I do think the practice of having a person who is an Australian in every way, and a long-term and permanent resident of this country, is a practice I would not like to see altered," Howard told commercial radio.

Australia rejects role for Prince William

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Australia rejects role for Prince William

'In the book, Brown said that Charles "really wanted the job because he saw it as a way to get the hell out of the grip of Prince Philip and the Queen."'

That makes no sense. The GG is appointed by the sovereign, right?
So how then does Brown back up this thesis of hers, the suggestion that Prince Charles can't wait to be free of the 'puppet strings' of HM????
She tries to say Prince Charles wanted the GG job, to be appointed by HM as GG so he could be "free" of her?
​

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no law or requirement for the GG to be an Australian but every GG since 1969 have been. The last non-Australian to hold the post was Lord Casey.

The Governor-General is chosen by the government of the day and recommended to the Queen, who acting on the advice of her Australian government appoints the government's choice.

Sir John Kerr was chosen by Gough Whitlam, whom he later dismissed from office, using the reserve powers of the Australian Constitution. These powers still exist and thus the GG can still dismiss the elected government.

These powers are more widespread than those of the Queen in the British system mainly because we have never had a referendum to change them. No change to the Australian Constitution can take place without a referendum and only about 8 changes have ever occurred and always with the support of both sides of politics. Ever getting a majority of support isn't enough to change the consitution as there also has to be a majority of states voting in support as well.

 

[wbenson]

The Queen doesn't choose the GG, though, and rarely sees the GG once they're in place. The only times the GG and Queen meet are before taking office and whenever one visits where the other is at.

 

[Polly]

I don't think its the law that they have to be Austrailian but more of a tradition the current Prime Minister would like to go back too. I think the tradition was altered for the Queen and for Charles, and that he would like to see it go back to the way it always was before them. This is the take I got on it from what I have read.

The current PM does not wish to return to the days of a non-Australian PM. The 'tradition' of having a British GG wasn't altered for anyone, Queen or Charles. It was dropped because most Australians wanted an Australian Governor General, no matter what their personal politics might be.

Charles' desire to be GG was personally expressed and seriously discussed but found inappropriate. I, too, would find William's appointment as Governor General entirely inappropriate. Simply, he's not Australian.

Opposition Leader Rudd has said that there's a place for British royals, and it's Britain. He noted that Australia's better at exporting royals (CP Mary).

Incidentally, Lord Casey, a former GG, was an Australian, not English. Since 1965 all GGs have been Australian, with two earlier others, Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931-36) and William McKell (1947-1953) being Australian. The 'tradition' of an Australian GG is now well and truly entrenched and despite my attitude to the royals in other areas, I fully endorse it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

OOps!!

I originally was going to say mid-60s and then, for some reason, thought that Lord Casey was British - strange seeing as I met him and my teacher, at the time, stressed that we should be proud to be meeting him as he was an Australian and not an 'import' (her words).

Funny how you forget things like that - I also meet Hasluck through school, which is why I suspect I got confused because I knew he was definitely Aussie born.

As an Aussie, and a proud one of some 7 generations standing, I would never want a non-Aussie in the position of GG (even if I am a monarchist).

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

The Queen doesn't choose the GG, though, and rarely sees the GG once they're in place. The only times the GG and Queen meet are before taking office and whenever one visits where the other is at.

Oh I thought she appointed GG's. It's really a ceremonial position, isn't it?
I thought the whole purpose of the GG's was so the Head of State would have a "representative" in the Commonwealth member countries?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Oh I thought she appointed GG's. It's really a ceremonial position, isn't it?
I thought the whole purpose of the GG's was so the Head of State would have a "representative" in the Commonwealth member countries?

The Queen does 'appoint' the GG. She doesn't choose them.

The GG carries out ALL the duties of the Queen within her realm of Australia. That is what is meant by 'represents the monarch'. He/She meets regularly with the PM, dissolves parliament, issues the writs for the election and signs the writs after the election, signs ALL legislation (called the Royal Assent) etc.

In that regard it is as ceremonial a position as that of the Queen herself. On ceremonial occasions where a member of the British Royal Family is present, excluding the Queen, the GG takes precedence over said royal as the GG is there officially for the Queen e.g. at the Bicenntennial celebrations in 1988 the then GG took precedence at those ceremonies over the Prince and Princess of Wales as he was representing the Queen in Australia while they were visiting. Of course if the Queen is herself present then she takes precedence with the GG immediately after her and before everyone else.

Actually the GG of Australia has more power than the Queen has in Britian because the Queen doesn't have the reserve powers that the GG has.


Most GGs have made one official visit to Britain during their term in office to meet with the Queen but this is not mandated anywhere. They do have phones etc and can discuss matters if necessary. One of the many complaints about the actions of both Sir Philip Game, in 1932 (he dismissed the elected government of NSW and the Premier Jack Lang), and Sir John Kerr, who dismissed the elected government of Australia and the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, was that neither representative of the monarch actually got advice from the monarch in person. They did seek constitutional advice from local constitutional experts about their actions however.

I don't wish to have a debate about the legalities of either dismissal. I am just stating the accepted facts in these matters to enlighten some of our os board members about the roles and powers of the GG in Australia. I don't know, for instance, whether the GG in other realms has the same powers.

 

[leanne]

In 1945 to 1947 Prince William's Great-great Uncle Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Governor-General of Australia, so Australia has been represented by Royalty previously.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In 1945 to 1947 Prince William's Great-great Uncle Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Governor-General of Australia, so Australia has been represented by Royalty previously.

But would we want to be represented by a British royal now? What was appropriate 60 years ago isn't necessarily the case now.


Australia has moved on from that situation and for the last 40 years has only had and Aussie as the GG, quite rightly IMHO.

As much as I am a monarchist I wouldn't want any member of the royal family as GG. I want an Aussie in that position.

Now, if the suggestion was that Harry (or some other member of the family - maybe one of the girls) was to become our monarch directly and live here, raise their family here, and pass the throne to Aussie born children) then I would have to think again!!!

Having raised that issue I am going to have to leave the board for about 5 days and visit my father whose computer is so old and slow it takes about 10 minutes for this site to load so I rarely bother.

 

[Elspeth]

What is it with these Windsor boys? They seem to think that being G-G of Australia is some sort of work experience opportunity for them while they wait for a real job.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the Windsor boys. This is yet another example of Tina Brown apparently being privy to secret conversations by members of the royal family. The biography in question would appear to be the Diana Chronicles, not a biography of William, and the Diana threads are already littered with verbatim accounts of secret conversations and secret desires. She must have managed to get thought-tranferring bugs implanted in the brains of half the royals, the way these quotes from her book are reading.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Actually the GG of Australia has more power than the Queen has in Britian because the Queen doesn't have the reserve powers that the GG has.

I disagree for two reasons:

1) The reserve powers of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia are outlined in the written Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, whereas the reserve powers of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom are loosely defined in an unwritten constitution, or in other words, in common law.

2) The powers exercisable by the Governor-General and Sovereign are influenced by constitutional convention, but are not formally restricted to not ever being exercised.
Just because the Sovereign or Governor-General doesn't exercise the powers their positions allow them to draw on, doesn't mean they are powerless.

 

[Von Schlesian]

There is, of course, the following clause at the very beginning of the Australian Constitution which would have to be dealt with in the circumstance of Britain becoming a republic before Australia (which I personally can't see happening):

2 Act to extend to the Queen’s successors
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to
Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom.​

The interpretation I have had, from constitutional lawyers is that this actually could be interpreted that a President of the UK would actually become the President of Australia until such time as we have a referendum to change that fact. This is based on the fact that the clause isn't just 'Her Majesty's heirs' but also 'successors' and that said 'successors' could actually be a republican Head of State. NB The 'Her Majesty' in this clause was actually Queen Victoria, which is why the clause says 'to extend to the Queen's successors...​

This is a legal opinion only and other lawyers and experts are just as likely to say the opposite of the interpretation I have given above. The interpretation was given to me over a dinner discussion with some colleagues of my father, two of them senior constitutional lawyers in Australia by the way. They did admit that not all experts in the field agree with their interpretation but that most did agree that if Britain became a republic then we could argue that we had also become a republic at the same time - the question is whether we have the same Head of State or whether, with that clause, we actually have the new British Head of State as ours.​

This theory could be answered with the following point. As the Constitution makes specific mention of the United Kingdom, that state would no longer exist were it to hypothetically, become a republic. No longer being a Kingdom/monarchy would certainly require formal change of the Australian Constitution as the state of the United Kingdom had been abolished.

Quite simply, there could be no President of a Kingdom, without there also being a monarch.

 

[Madame Royale]

ninemsn

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says another referendum on whether Australia should become a republic will be held if Labor wins office.

Republic referendum is on cards: Rudd

 

[Attaining Grace]

Hello everyone,

I've studied Law and I fail to understand why so many people are Republicans when we are a completely independent country legally. Many of them have an Irish background or they are immigrants and I understand their views to some extent but I don't understand people with a British background wanting Australia to be a republic.

Many people dislike the idea of Prince Charles being King and Camilla becoming Queen but if they're trying to be loyal to the memory of Princess Diana I think that they are very sadly mistaken. I am absolutely sure that she would have wanted Prince William to be King!

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace

Lisa-Anne Sanderson Writer and Editor - Writing and editing by experienced freelancer
bookaddiction

 

[Attaining Grace]

I think that PW really doesn't want to be G-G at all but it's been jumped at by the Republican press. I am an Australian and I would be perfectly happy to have him as G-G myself, but I can see that this would ruin the argument (with which I certainly agree) that our G-G is our Head of State and is an Australian.

Best Regards,
Attaining Grace

 

[Attaining Grace]

1
I think that you and I agree on the problems of our education system in this area which is good to see in an obviously young person. Unfortunately I realise that what is right is not necessarily the way my fellow teachers teach. I too have teachers who refer to the Queen as a Pommy and the words used for the G-G have been pretty awful - especially from some of the student teachers I have had recently - but what can you expect when they are being taught that Gallipoli was a great victory for Australia!!!!

Hello Chrissy,

I should have put all these replies into one post, I'm sorry.

This surely can't be literally true! How could they possibly be taught that Gallipoli is a great victory? What are the textbooks that they are using?

Is this something to do with what they are learning about Anzac Day? Don't their teachers know their history?

I know that I was quite shocked when I talked about Captain Cook and said that he discovered Australia and my nephew said that I meant that Australia was 'invaded'. That isn't as bad as saying that Gallipoli was a victory, however!

Best Regards,
Lisa
Lisa-Anne Sanderson Writer and Editor - Writing and editing by experienced freelancer
bookaddiction

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is a logical assumption considering that all that is compulsorily taught in NSW schools is that Australians fought at Gallipoli.
Then they are taught that we were on the winning side of the war.

The majority of students don't learn anything about Australians fighting in any other theatre of war in World War One or about fighting after 1915 so they assume that as we were on the winning side and aren't being taught about later campaigns then they assume that Gallipoli was a victory. The current textbooks used in NSW for the compulsory course doesn't mention anything about this.

I have just had another student teacher from Sydney university (the fourth in three years) who has told me the same thing. These are going to go out there and then teach this to young Australians.

Frankly I would like to make the compulsory course include all of World War One and World War Two (the compulsory course only has to study ONE campaign involving Australians in WWII so must students learn nothing about Aussies fighting against the Germans or in fact fighting anywhere except Kokada - makes it easy to teach kids that Britain 'deserted' us at Singapore as they don't get taught anything about the situation facing Britain in 1941 - 42.

I really fear for the future history knowledge of young Australians - it is so missing stuff but is so skewed as well (that is in states where it is taught at all!!).

 

[Attaining Grace]

Hello Chrissy,

It's all very shocking. I remember that there was an argument not very long ago that history should be taught in chronological order - at least as much as possible! I was astonished that there was a great outcry about this because I agreed.

I studied history at school thirty years ago and I am not sure whether it was much better then. It was better but when I look back I have learned most of my knowledge of history from university and reading. The trouble was the curriculum. It was so strange and disjointed. One day we'd be learning about the French Revolution and the next day we would learn about the causes of the First World War.

I absolutely agree with you that students should do a compulsory course covering both wars. The whole way that history is taught is just crazy. If Labor gets in this will probably be even worse, although this is not the place for politics - this is my personal opinion.

Best Regards,
Lisa

 

[chloephoto]

Australia and the British royal family

Hello to you all.
I'm a photographer from London doing a piece on the relationship between British royalty and the Australian people. I'm on my way out to Sydney in December and would like to find Royal supporters and enthusiasts to involve in the project. Any contacts to people, societies or associations in Australia would be greatly appreciated, so please help!
Thank you thank you
Chloe

{e-mail address removed - Elspeth}

 

[Elspeth]

If anyone is interested in helping Chloe with this venture, please contact one of the British forum mods (especially Warren, our Australian mod ). I've removed her e-mail address, in accordance with our rules, but we can put you in touch with her. I'm sure, since we have quite a few Australian regulars here, we should be able to come up with something. Also, of course, please feel free to contact Chloe by private message.

 

[WindsorIII]

Queen Mum's fashion letter for auction

December 27, 2007 - 9:15PM


A letter written by the Queen Mother more than 80 years ago expressing concern over the high cost of fashion while looking for a new wardrobe to wear to Australia will be auctioned.

In the letter - dated September 27, 1926, and contained in the archive of court dressmakers Mme Handley Seymour - Queen Elizabeth, then the Duchess or York, asks the firm to examine her next bill before sending it as she thought some items in the previous one were "rather too expensive".

Queen Mum's fashion letter for auction - Breaking News - World - Breaking News

 

[kbear]

I would think that if they don't want Charles after the death of his mother, why would they want to continue with a monarch at all?

We like the system of government its efficient.