Talk:Monarchy of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should the governor-general be in the top infobox[edit]

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
StyleHis Majesty
Heir apparentWilliam, 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)[reply]

If we include the GG, we should include the governors as well...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just have the monarch in the infobox, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ....just one. Moxy- 03:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to government page, in the lead[edit]

We don't link to the government pages in the leads of Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Belize & the other Commonwealth realms monarchy pages. So, best we be consistent & not link (in the lead) to the Australian government page. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK the most specific topic should be linked. It also makes sense, as a reader who learns that Australian form of goverment is a monarchy would also probably want to know about Australia's form of government more generally and in detail. Safes007 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to make the same linkages at the UK monarchy & other Commonwealth monarchy pages, concerning their respective governments? GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is this a theoretical question or a practical question? I imagine it would depend on the context of the page and whether a different page exists and whether it provides relevant information. Safes007 (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Practical - You've directly linked to the Australian government page, in the lead. In the other monarchy pages leads, will you also be linking to their government pages? Why single out Australia. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am Australian I don't know enough about all the other members of the Commonwealth to determine if it's necessary or not. I think it's useful here because of the detailed page about the government of australia, but other editors on other pages may come to different conclusions (which isn't a bad thing).
My understanding is that links should be added where they are useful and relevant (per WP:LINK) and consistency with other pages on commonwealth realm monarchies isn't a relevant consideration. Safes007 (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be relevant though, as they've the same Westminster system, let alone the same individual as monarch. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that's a discussion to have on the respective pages, not here. Safes007 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask if you were going to do so, on those other monarchy pages. Your answer is obviously - 'no'. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to "Pete" above[edit]

Although Charles III is Australia's head of state, he is *not* King by the grace of God, or by virtue of an Anglican coronation ceremony.

This ceremony only relates to his title of King of the United Kingdom. Nor is he King of Australia *because* he is King of the United Kingdom. These two titles are quite separate. Nor does Charles have any religious role by virtue of being King of Australia - there is no established church in Australia. That is why there was no coronation ceremony in Australia.

Charles is King of Australia solely by virtue of the Australian Constitution, which was ratified by the Australian people at referendums between 1898 and 1900, and which can be changed only by the Australian people at a constitutional referendum.

At the 1999 referendum, the Australian people voted to retain the constitutional monarchy, which is why Charles was proclaimed King of Australia on the death of the late Queen. He and his successors will retain that title unless and until the Australian people decide otherwise at a referendum.

So, the notion written above that if the UK abruptly and without warning became a republic next week, as it could and can do with no written constitution, the new British President would be Australia's head of state is wrong as the House of Windsor would remain the monarchs of our separate Australian monarchy until and if a referendum was called and passed according to the requirements of s. 128.

That is why every member of Parliament (even you, Senator Lidia Thorpe) takes an oath of allegiance to the King, and why the Prime Minister (despite being a lifelong republican) took that oath at the Coronation. This oath is of course conditional, because it is oath of allegiance to the King and his heirs and successors *according to law *and, in Australia, that means according to the Constitution.

If the Australian people vote to change the Constitution, they and he will be released from that oath. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Charles get any say in all this? HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. Mister Mountbatten-Windsor cannot change Australia's constitution upon a whim as the ability to do so is not mentioned in the procedure set forth in s, 128. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source that makes this specific claim, this might be relevant, but until then this isn't relevant for a wikipedia article. Safes007 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1939[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

  • These are different topics. The monarch is the individual, the monarchy is the system. CMD (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose the change would be inconsistent with similar articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia&oldid=1220780083"