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)

Linking to government page, in the lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps, but that's a discussion to have on the respective pages, not here. Safes007 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)