Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Federal monarchy
' States and Territories
The Australian monarchy is a federal one (link to federal monarchy)..'
Once again, I feel I must object to what seems to be an invention. If one follows the link, a tag is confronted. It warns of original research and lack of citations. There is not one direct reference in that article to show that there is such a term as Federal Monarchy. And yet we find it in various obscure places across Wikipedia. I know what the author is intending to express: a monarchy which is also a federal nation. No arguments about that. But it is the invention of the term that is worrying. I have never heard of Australia referred to as a 'Federal Monarchy'. And I can see problems with it. Is the monarchy federated with itself? Is the Crown of,say, South Australia federated with the Crown of Australia? No, what is federated are the states, not the Crown, which is the same Crown but in different jurisdictions. If someone can provide a direct reference please do so and I will eat humble pie. Until such a time I have reverted the edit.--Gazzster (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. I just added a deletion nomination to federal monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This Federal Monarchy thing is news to me. I thought the State Govenors where wholely independant.Petedavo talk contributions 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously that's not in question. I'm questioning the link.--Gazzster (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- In Australia the Federation within the Constitution only gives the Federal Government specific powers. Each State still has a seperate Government that is not subordinate, except where Federal Laws conflict with State Laws. Each State has to pass laws if a power is agreed to be taken over, such as was the case with taxation, or may become the case with the Darling Murray rivers. There is no "Federation" when it comes to Executive Government. Each State has a Govenor and none is subordinate to the GG as far as I can find. The Australian Constitution was an Act of the UK Parliament and each state adopted it with enabling legislation to create the Commonwealth of Australia. This had been subject to some debate in the Privy Council about whether it remained valid after 1919 but this is irrelevant anyway as no state has yet withdrawn from the Federation, although WA did try back in the 1930's, however Buckingham Palace would not act without direction from the Govenor General who just chose to remain silent so nothing happened. So in practice the Commonwealth Executive has been (in one situation) more powerful than a State Executive so it has a "convention". Petedavo talk contributions 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Arms
As the sovereign is the personal embodiment of the state - even, it would seem, at the state level in Australia - the state arms are the sovereign's arms, just as the Arms of Scotland are the Queen's arms in that country, and the same for Canada, Alberta, etc. One would today never see the Queen's Scottish Arms in Quebec, or her Jamaican arms in New Zealand, and so her British Arms are being replaced with her New South Wales ones in New South Wales. If that is somehow not the case, then the sentence in question has nothing to do with the Australian monarchy, per say, and only with the British monarchy and the state of New South Wales, which, I imagine, would be more relevant elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why then did so many Australian monarchists deride the move? And why is it that her British arms are still displayed in the courts of other Australian states? It has a lot to do with whether or not the sovereign is viewed as the personal embodiment of the state. Slac speak up! 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- To your latter statement: not really, if the NSW arms are, as you say, not the Queen's. If all the sentence is talking about is the Arms of the British monarch being replaced with the Arms of the State of New South Wales, then where does the Australian monarch fit in? I would say it should be the Queen British Arms being replaced with the Queen's New South Wales Arms, which would be relevant to this article, but you and Gazzster appear to be saying I'm wrong about the NSW Arms. Which is it to be?
- Also, I don't know why Australian monarchists fought the move. Tradition? --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- G2, I apologise for coming off as critical, but once again it appears you're not looking at this from a native Australian perspective. This is not a case of "patriating" the arms - a Canadianism - but deliberately, albeit very subtly, asserting that the authority of the State of New South Wales does not flow from the authority of the sovereign. Slac speak up! 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any need to get into the political motivations behind the move (as inaccurate as they are if what you say is true). --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, G2 you are assuming a parrallel between Australia and another Commonwealth realm. Please don't suppose things- research them. In the UK, the Royal Arms may be used as the national symbol, but in Australia it is not the case. The Commonwealth Arms are not the arms of the sovereign. They are the arms of the nation. The arms of the states are likewise not the royal arms. These arms contain symbols of royalty- of course they would - but the Queen of Australia has her own standard, which is illustrated in the article. Likewise tyhe arms of the Governor-General are not the arms of the sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- And what is her standard comprised of but the shield of her Australian Arms, which are themselves made up of the shields of each of her state Arms? Regardless, I'm not getting confused with any other realms; either the NSW Arms are the Queen's Arms for NSW or they are not. If they are not then there's no need to mention them in this article. --G2bambino (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, G2 you are assuming a parrallel between Australia and another Commonwealth realm. Please don't suppose things- research them. In the UK, the Royal Arms may be used as the national symbol, but in Australia it is not the case. The Commonwealth Arms are not the arms of the sovereign. They are the arms of the nation. The arms of the states are likewise not the royal arms. These arms contain symbols of royalty- of course they would - but the Queen of Australia has her own standard, which is illustrated in the article. Likewise tyhe arms of the Governor-General are not the arms of the sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any need to get into the political motivations behind the move (as inaccurate as they are if what you say is true). --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "political motivations behind the move" are what make this a topic of interest in an article on monarchy in Australia. Australian monarchist Kerry Jones as well as others such as David Flint called the replacement of arms "republicanism by stealth". Once again, this is an issue that requires local perspective. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the various state constitutions establish the judicature and the other apparatus of state; they do not exist as a delegated power of the sovereign. Such may be technically true in the UK or (but I don't believe so) in Canada; but it is constitutionally not the case in Australia. To return to my main point, in the view of Australian monarchists and republicans, the issue of the arms is an issue for the debate on the constitutional status on the monarch. Slac speak up! 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm not going to get into the details of this, but perhaps it's better dealt with in a section or article about monarchism in Australia, or the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy article. --G2bambino (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "political motivations behind the move" are what make this a topic of interest in an article on monarchy in Australia. Australian monarchist Kerry Jones as well as others such as David Flint called the replacement of arms "republicanism by stealth". Once again, this is an issue that requires local perspective. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the various state constitutions establish the judicature and the other apparatus of state; they do not exist as a delegated power of the sovereign. Such may be technically true in the UK or (but I don't believe so) in Canada; but it is constitutionally not the case in Australia. To return to my main point, in the view of Australian monarchists and republicans, the issue of the arms is an issue for the debate on the constitutional status on the monarch. Slac speak up! 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remember that the opinion that it impugns on the monarch's constitutional status, whether accurate in your view or not, is the relevant criterion for inclusion. There is an opinion that it does - therefore it should be included. Slac speak up! 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, opinions are testy things on Wikipedia and would definitely need supporting sources. --G2bambino (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Jones' statement above. Slac speak up! 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Republican endorsing the moves as a change to monarch's status that doesn't require constitutional referendum Slac speak up! 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I had a read. It seems, though, that Jones is talking about the Oath of Allegiance; the arms are only given a brief mention, and only then is about a crown being removed from them. As for the ARM: well, what can one expect? Still, they explicitly state that the changing of the Arms from the British to the NSW is not a constitutional change. Some may see a political motive in the changes, but that doesn't mean mention of the NSW arms belong in this article, and especially not in a section that covers the legal role of the Crown. --G2bambino (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about the constitutional implications. I'm simply saying that State Arms or Arms of the Commonwealth are not royal standards and not symbols of the monarchy. That's why I deleted the image. In the UK there is a tradition of identifying the sovereign with the nation, for historical reasons. But in Australia there has always been a strong sense of national and state identity distinct from a sovereign who lives on the other side of the world. Technically, legallym, morally, in any sense you like, the state and national arms represents the state entity, not the person of the sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The stuff on that site is interesting, though. Just had a squiz.--Gazzster (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's say then that the passage of the act is an illustration of the fact. It does remain true however that not all states have endorsed the move. If there was absolutely no significance in the move it is hard to see why the NSW parliament would have taken the steps it did. The image can go, fine, but the note about the replacement of symbols is significant. Slac speak up! 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in this article, or, at least, in that section, I'm afraid. --G2bambino (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? It's relevant, and it can be sourced.--Gazzster (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can it? I've already pointed out above how the two sources so far provided say nothing about the change in Arms affecting the Queen's legal status. All there is is some opinions about the motivations behind the move, which doesn't belong in a section on the legal role of the Crown. Such debates belong in the debate section, Republicanism in Australia, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Australian Republican Movement, and the like. --G2bambino (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually I was thinking more about the stuff in Lacrimus's site. About not using the royal arms on buildings, replacing crown lands with state lands, etc. That stuff could be referenced easily enough.--Gazzster (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can it? I've already pointed out above how the two sources so far provided say nothing about the change in Arms affecting the Queen's legal status. All there is is some opinions about the motivations behind the move, which doesn't belong in a section on the legal role of the Crown. Such debates belong in the debate section, Republicanism in Australia, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Australian Republican Movement, and the like. --G2bambino (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's say then that the passage of the act is an illustration of the fact. It does remain true however that not all states have endorsed the move. If there was absolutely no significance in the move it is hard to see why the NSW parliament would have taken the steps it did. The image can go, fine, but the note about the replacement of symbols is significant. Slac speak up! 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The stuff on that site is interesting, though. Just had a squiz.--Gazzster (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, opinions are testy things on Wikipedia and would definitely need supporting sources. --G2bambino (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just had a squiz at the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill (NSW) [2003 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/bill/sasaeb2003314/]. Interesting stuff if your into reading government bills! (yeah, I know, I don't have a life -lol) It's interesting that the bill removes the Royal Arms of 'Her Majesty Elizabeth II in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' You'd think if the bill was anti-monarchist and pro-republican it would name her as Queen of Australia. Which might suggest that what the bill objects to is the mark of a foreign country, not the symbol of the Queen per se.--Gazzster (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, but in the eyes of republicans the two are interlinked. As a person who has no life (i can sympathise :), maybe you'd be interested in reading some of the second reading speeches in the nsw parliament's hansard on the bill. Slac speak up! 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have missed all this while travelling. While I would have to dig up references that I can't get at right now, I can tell you that when the change was being proposed and debated (even before the bill was introduced), it was definitely argued that the state arms were the arms of the Queen as Queen in New South Wales. The wording of the Bill, specifically referring to the arms as those of the Queen in another capacity, quite deliberately avoided any implication that it was a symbol of the Queen that was being removed, whatever actual or perceived ulterior motives were there. Of course, the argument that the state arms are those of the Queen was simply an argument, and should not be stated authoritatively, but I think it is fair to say that it is the reasoning used to justify the change in NSW. JPD (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
History
I'm going to cut the section 'history'. I'm giving my reasons here cause theyre too much to put in the editorial note. The passage has always sat uneasily with me. It doesn't read well; there seems to be no cohesion to it. It feels incomplete. Some of it is simply a reflection on the 'Origins' section. Some of it, especially the stuff about the bells, is trivial and irrelevant. And the history of the monarchy is already covered in 'Development'.--Gazzster (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- How could the section be improved, G2? The section 'development of the shared monarchy' already treats of the history of the monarchy. As does 'origins'. What do you think a separate 'history' section should be about?--Gazzster (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should be about history. See Monarchy of the United Kingdom#History, Monarchy of Canada#History. Perhaps "Origins" should be in the "History" section; "Development of shared monarchy" seems more related to the international aspects of the Crown, and thus is in the correct location. --G2bambino (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to add further that I agree the "History" section is presently pretty weak, but it will take time to research and expand it. Deleting the present material doesn't assist in the construction of the section. --G2bambino (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'Development of the shared monarchy' is the history of the monarchy in Australia. 1901-2008; that is the period of the Australian monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- And if my idea of deleting an irrelevant and incoherent section is to be deplored, so might the idea of simply transferring a paragraph to another section. What you've made is an incoherent hodge-podge about George III and royal bells!--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you understand the concept of building a section? They don't just appear out of nowhere, fully complete and coherent.
- The "Origins" section was moved to appease you. If you don't now like it, move it back. --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. A history section is unecessary. The development of the constitutional monarchy is already explain. That is the history of the monarchy in Australia. And it's all there already: Constitution Act 1901, Balfour Declaration, Westminster, the two Royal Styles and Titles Act, Constitution Act 1986. It is unecessary and, in my opinion, somewhat flippant, to go back to 1778 and George III. You may as well go back to Egbert! If you like, we could make links to History of the British monarchy. I'd have no objection that. But the scope of the article is limited. There was no Australia before 1901. Therefore, no monarchy b4 1901.--Gazzster (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is only a specific part of the history; there is obviously much more to it than simply the constitutional development in an international scope. There are royal associations specific to Australia going all the way back to the First Fleet and George III. Prior to 1931 it was indeed the British Crown and not the Australian, but the historical continuity exists between the two. Would you prefer that the section be retitled as "History of monarchy in Australia" (minus the italics, of course)? --G2bambino (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No thanks. Wasn't there an almighty war to keep the present phrase? No, the relationship between the British crown before 1901 is well represented by articles about the history of the states. And there isn't much to say. However I have been thinking of expanding 'development of the shared monarchy'. I would rename it 'development of an Australian monarchy', and I would make a brief reference to the relationship of the crown and the colonies.--Gazzster (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still perceive that you're stuck in the belief that the history of the Crown can only deal with constitutional matters. Hopefully you'll see differently as I fill out the section; I've started to do so, but it will take time to build it up.
- I'm not immediately against a change to the heading "Development of shared monarchy," though I wonder if making the title specific to Australia would belie the international aspects of the section. --G2bambino (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Fair enough. I'll see what you do and reserve judgement. I still want to augment the shared monarchy section and change the title. Tell you what, you do history and we'll see what we think. And I'll do development of an Australian monarchy, and the community can judge. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No thanks. Wasn't there an almighty war to keep the present phrase? No, the relationship between the British crown before 1901 is well represented by articles about the history of the states. And there isn't much to say. However I have been thinking of expanding 'development of the shared monarchy'. I would rename it 'development of an Australian monarchy', and I would make a brief reference to the relationship of the crown and the colonies.--Gazzster (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is only a specific part of the history; there is obviously much more to it than simply the constitutional development in an international scope. There are royal associations specific to Australia going all the way back to the First Fleet and George III. Prior to 1931 it was indeed the British Crown and not the Australian, but the historical continuity exists between the two. Would you prefer that the section be retitled as "History of monarchy in Australia" (minus the italics, of course)? --G2bambino (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. A history section is unecessary. The development of the constitutional monarchy is already explain. That is the history of the monarchy in Australia. And it's all there already: Constitution Act 1901, Balfour Declaration, Westminster, the two Royal Styles and Titles Act, Constitution Act 1986. It is unecessary and, in my opinion, somewhat flippant, to go back to 1778 and George III. You may as well go back to Egbert! If you like, we could make links to History of the British monarchy. I'd have no objection that. But the scope of the article is limited. There was no Australia before 1901. Therefore, no monarchy b4 1901.--Gazzster (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- And if my idea of deleting an irrelevant and incoherent section is to be deplored, so might the idea of simply transferring a paragraph to another section. What you've made is an incoherent hodge-podge about George III and royal bells!--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'Development of the shared monarchy' is the history of the monarchy in Australia. 1901-2008; that is the period of the Australian monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- yeah, cut section 8 history. it's duplicating some earlier parts of the article and most of it should be in an article about the colony of new south wales. and by the way, what has james cook got to do with establishing the colony of new south wales? Sure he found and named the land of new south wales but the colony of new south wales didn't come about until 1788 well after jimmy was already gobbled up in hawaii. The section is so full of incorrect assertions that it's not worth reworking. Petedavo talk contributions 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, cut "History" and distribute whatever of worth that it holds to other sections. It seems all to be either redundant, trivial, or if not wholly trivial then giving over-much space to what it covers. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- As a courtesy G2, I'm letting you know I'm taking up your invitation and having a look at the history section. I acknowledge the work and research you've done on it. I should warn you though, I'm thinking of removing a lot from it. Let's see what we all think anyway. --Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Development of an Australian monarchy
I've only had a brief look at the section in its retitled and rewritten form, but I'm immediatly struck by the observation that the content, though valid and well researched, hasn't expanded on what was there before, but completely changed the content, thus altering the purpose of the section all-together. It seems what's been put there now would be more appropriate in the history section, and a section on the shared nature of the Crown - titled "Shared monarchy" or some such thing - be put in its place at the upper part of the page. --G2bambino (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your compliment. The original section did in fact touch on the constitutional development, although it was unclear what it was actually explaining. Since the article is about the Australian monarchy, its development needs to be explained first off. After all, it explains what the Australian monarchy is. A reader should not have to wait 'till 'history' to find that out. The shared monarchy reference is still there, with a link. And it is, in any case, obviously implied.--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know it did, for the purposes of explaining the shared nature of the Crown beyond Austrlaia's borders. Now, however, you've deleted the "Shared monarchy" section when what it contained is not covered already elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shared Monarchy covered the constitutional development of the Australian monarchy. That is what the present tiitle covers. The same content. What information is not covered? As far as I can see, it's all there, but expanded, in greater detail and with references. --Gazzster (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the concept of a shared monarchy is explained at least four times: in the dablink; in the introduction; in a section (with a link); and in the context of the Australian monarchy, at length in the new section.--Gazzster (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whereas the original "Shared monarchy" section clearly illustrated in what manner Australia presently related to the other realms in terms of the Crown, what was once in it now seems diluted into a convoluted collection of information that jumps from Governors General to the Queen's title, if not lost completely. Where, for instance, is the information about the monarchy ceasing to be an exclusively British institution, although often being called British? Ditto for the agreements r.e. changes to the rules of succession, the Queen only taking advice from Australian ministers on Australian matters, etc. I don't see it there anymore. --G2bambino (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is stated quite distinctly that the Crown of Australia is legally distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom. If you want me to put that it is still called the British Crown, I'll do that now. As to the Queen taking advice only from Australian ministers, that's explained. Put the stuff about the Abdication in the truncated Shared monarchy, if you like. As to 'convoluted', it reads perfectly fine to me. Granted, I'll wait for other editors' comments. The new section is a bit different, I grant. It's about the constitutional development of the Australian monarchy in specie, something which, until now, the article lacked. I don't understand why you object. Are you sure you don't have ownership issues over this?--Gazzster (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, Gazzster. There's nothing wrong with outlining the evolution of the modern monarchy, but the section is dense and stylistically broken. Further, what once clearly spelled out the present situation in a brief manner has been dispersed, some lost in a collection of facts about the past, some gone all-together. Do you resort to jabs at my credibility because you actually know your deletion of "Shared monarchy" wasn't really an improvement? --G2bambino (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't havin' a jab mate. It would be understandable if you were defensive of your text. But I take your word for it that you're not being precious. I'll overlook your jab.--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- And I didn't say squat about your 'credibility'.--Gazzster (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, precious is not something I've been suspected as being before. That's a first. And if you suggest I'm motivated by ownership issues over a desire for good content, you certainly are calling my credibility into question. Regardless, I've tried to re-manage the content in question. Nothing is repeated. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I take that burst of automatic politeness back. It appears that everytime someone wants to edit a monarchy-related topic to improve it, you either revert, or reword the edit according to your own style and to to include a monarchist, 'shared monarchy' emphasis. No, I cannot judge you. But I can observe that your edits show a stong and intolerant monarchist bias. Many of your edits have the appearance of unreferenced assumptions (such as 'various royals' served as viceroys of Australia (there was only one).You have been known to just produce terms out of nowhere and link articles to Commonwealth realm with little or no justification. I'm not the only editor to observe this (and TharkunColl is not the only other one). Again, I do not judge you, but the control issues you seem to have over edits are indeed indicative of a sense of ownership. I'm seriously considering starting a new article, Constitutional history of the Australian monarchy, since I fear this one is the scene of editorial bullyingGazzster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't havin' a jab mate. It would be understandable if you were defensive of your text. But I take your word for it that you're not being precious. I'll overlook your jab.--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, Gazzster. There's nothing wrong with outlining the evolution of the modern monarchy, but the section is dense and stylistically broken. Further, what once clearly spelled out the present situation in a brief manner has been dispersed, some lost in a collection of facts about the past, some gone all-together. Do you resort to jabs at my credibility because you actually know your deletion of "Shared monarchy" wasn't really an improvement? --G2bambino (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is stated quite distinctly that the Crown of Australia is legally distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom. If you want me to put that it is still called the British Crown, I'll do that now. As to the Queen taking advice only from Australian ministers, that's explained. Put the stuff about the Abdication in the truncated Shared monarchy, if you like. As to 'convoluted', it reads perfectly fine to me. Granted, I'll wait for other editors' comments. The new section is a bit different, I grant. It's about the constitutional development of the Australian monarchy in specie, something which, until now, the article lacked. I don't understand why you object. Are you sure you don't have ownership issues over this?--Gazzster (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whereas the original "Shared monarchy" section clearly illustrated in what manner Australia presently related to the other realms in terms of the Crown, what was once in it now seems diluted into a convoluted collection of information that jumps from Governors General to the Queen's title, if not lost completely. Where, for instance, is the information about the monarchy ceasing to be an exclusively British institution, although often being called British? Ditto for the agreements r.e. changes to the rules of succession, the Queen only taking advice from Australian ministers on Australian matters, etc. I don't see it there anymore. --G2bambino (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the concept of a shared monarchy is explained at least four times: in the dablink; in the introduction; in a section (with a link); and in the context of the Australian monarchy, at length in the new section.--Gazzster (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shared Monarchy covered the constitutional development of the Australian monarchy. That is what the present tiitle covers. The same content. What information is not covered? As far as I can see, it's all there, but expanded, in greater detail and with references. --Gazzster (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know it did, for the purposes of explaining the shared nature of the Crown beyond Austrlaia's borders. Now, however, you've deleted the "Shared monarchy" section when what it contained is not covered already elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that the Australian monarchy is not part of a shared monarchy? You stomp your feet and throw accusations of "control issues," yet what is it all over but your own edits being changed? Hypocritical much? If I've copied text into this article and neglected to alter it accordingly, then fix the error. But don't pout because someone pushes back against your habit of unilaterally deleting large chunks of what you personally think is either non-existent or irrelevant. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weeeeeeeep (that's my whistle blowing). Hold on fellas - improve the article, don't destroy each other. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'My habit', G2? How many times have you blocked for aggresive editing? How many times have I? Zero. But before I finish what will be my last post on this page or even Wikipedia, I'd like to say this: after 2 years here, I've finally learnt that Wikipedia is not about the pursuit of truth and the dissesmination of knowledge. It is about a bunch of amateurs (for that is what we are) engaged in a hobby. It is about the manipulation, and indeed, in many cases, manufacture of truth. (I'm not pointing at you in particular G2, we're all involved) It is about trying to impose our view of the world on others. True, there are rules about verification, good faith, etc. But, in the words of Homer Simpson, 'you can prove anything with facts'. In other words, if you look hard enough, anyone can find a source to prove their viewpoint. Academically Wikipedia is shoddy at best; at its worst, it produces complete fabrications of truth. If it were just amongst ourselves, it would, perhaps, be of little import. But material from here gets copied onto a thousand other sites, and is used by millions of members of the public all over the world, particularly schoolchildren. And perhaps the fascination for some of us is here: we are engaged in altering perceptions. No, this tirade, as some of you will call it, is not about a monarchist alterring a well referenced and relevant section to fit his own view, it is about the whole philosophy of Wikipedia. I am not the first to be disgusted by it, and not the first to leave because of it, and no doubt the last. Gentlemen, stop typing: go out and make love to your girlfriends or boyfriends, go for a walk in the forest, do something that connects you with life. And to you real gents out there, cheers! And to the rest, well, decency forbids. Bye! --Gazzster (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please, Gazzster, this seems to be nothing more than a thinly veiled whinge about someone editing "your" work. Perhaps such a complaint could be justified, it probably happens to us all, but, in this particular case, which is all I'm currently concerned about, you haven't yet pointed directly at anything which supports your assertions. When one considers that absolutely none of your well referenced material was removed, your complaints become almost comical.
- Having worked with you previously, I can't for one minute believe that you honestly think your work has been manipulated to suppress The Truth in favour of my particular imagined viewpoint. I can only think that you must not have reviewed the latest edits thoroughly enough and are under a mistaken belief about what happened. I urge you to look again. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'My habit', G2? How many times have you blocked for aggresive editing? How many times have I? Zero. But before I finish what will be my last post on this page or even Wikipedia, I'd like to say this: after 2 years here, I've finally learnt that Wikipedia is not about the pursuit of truth and the dissesmination of knowledge. It is about a bunch of amateurs (for that is what we are) engaged in a hobby. It is about the manipulation, and indeed, in many cases, manufacture of truth. (I'm not pointing at you in particular G2, we're all involved) It is about trying to impose our view of the world on others. True, there are rules about verification, good faith, etc. But, in the words of Homer Simpson, 'you can prove anything with facts'. In other words, if you look hard enough, anyone can find a source to prove their viewpoint. Academically Wikipedia is shoddy at best; at its worst, it produces complete fabrications of truth. If it were just amongst ourselves, it would, perhaps, be of little import. But material from here gets copied onto a thousand other sites, and is used by millions of members of the public all over the world, particularly schoolchildren. And perhaps the fascination for some of us is here: we are engaged in altering perceptions. No, this tirade, as some of you will call it, is not about a monarchist alterring a well referenced and relevant section to fit his own view, it is about the whole philosophy of Wikipedia. I am not the first to be disgusted by it, and not the first to leave because of it, and no doubt the last. Gentlemen, stop typing: go out and make love to your girlfriends or boyfriends, go for a walk in the forest, do something that connects you with life. And to you real gents out there, cheers! And to the rest, well, decency forbids. Bye! --Gazzster (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weeeeeeeep (that's my whistle blowing). Hold on fellas - improve the article, don't destroy each other. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
History again
I've made a couple of edits to the history section, and I came across the description of Australia as a kingdom. I know this has come up in this and other Commonwealth realm articles before. Can we call Australia a kingdom? It is a realm, indisputably, but a kingdom? It's a matter of nomenclature. A kingdom is a nation ruled by a monarch. Is Australia ruled by a monarch? Yes. So it's a kingdom? Npt really. As I say, it's a matter of naming things. Australia is not labelled or even described as a kingdom anywhere. So I don't think we can here.--Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. A kingdom tends to have its own monarch. But, having skimmed through the article, I am very surprsised to discover that the British government as late as 1976 vetoed a state governor in Australia. What on earth was going on here? 1976 was the year in which the British economy went bankrupt and all colonial matters were consigned to the dustbin of history. It was the era in which Wilson lost control and the army set up road blocks at airports in defiance of his authority, and in which Lord Mountbatten was approached by senior army officers to head a coup against the government, and in which Wilson was forced out of office. It was the year of 30 percent inflation per month. It was the year that the British establishment realised that the glory days were over. it was the year of Anarchy in the UK by the Sex Pistols. It was the year in which British civilisation - that which we had given to the world - tetered on the brink. It was a year that only those who lived through it would appreciate. It was the year that defined who we are today. So why bother interfering in Australia? TharkunColl (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a fascinating topic Tharky. I'm currently working on a section for the 'history' section. It deals with the political aftermath of the 1975 crisis. The governor involved was Sir Colin Hannah, the Governor of Queensland. He was the senior governor, and, as such, acting governor when Sir John Kerr was away. Hannah publicly criticised Whitlam in the political aerena. Whitlam advised the Queen to revoke Hannahs commission. She did so. The premier of Qld, Bjelke-Petersen, protested that it was the role of the premier to advise the Queen on matters to do with a state governor. B Palace told him he was wrong. This caused a great stir amongst the state premiers. So much so that premier Wran of NSW intended to introduce a Bill abolishing the right of British ministers to advise the Queen in matters pertaining to NSW. The Brit government was horrified, and at one point castigated the NSW government for not following its advice. In the end the bill was not presented. Oh its fascinating stuff. I hope to have the new ifo up in a day or two. I tend to agree with what you said before, the styatus and role of the monarchy in Auastralia is pretty ambivalent.--Gazzster (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Before 1986 the only body that could advise the Queen on the appointment and dismissal of a state Governor was the British Cabinet. The Queen would have been quite out of constitutional bounds to have accepted any advice from her Australian prime minister regarding state Governors, then or now. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- We're not talking about whether it was constitutional or not.--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we somewhat are. It would be an interesting piece of history indeed if you could provide evidence that the Queen acted unconstitutionally. --G2bambino (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, I'll say it again. We were not discussing whether the Queen had acted unconstitutionally or not. Its a controversey. It's of interest.--Gazzster (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be hugely controversial for you to put into the article what you say the Queen did. Especially as it contradicts other parts of the text here that says Whitlam couldn't, by law, advise the Queen on any state affair, either before or after 1986. Of course, we can't judge what you've written until you've written it, but I can't understand how you don't see a need to be careful so as not to imply huge constitutional blunders on EIIR's part. --G2bambino (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see, I have referenced the information. I have not made any judgements. The facts speak for themselves. Twomey, a Constitutional lawyer who is a prominent reference for thjis article, deals with the issues at length. I think you misunderstand what the controversy was about: it was not about a prime minister interferring in state affairs. It was about the Sovereign interfering in state affairs. This brought into light an apparent anomaly- the Sovereign was constitutionally within her rights to be advised by London in state affairs. However, Westminster convention, practised even in the Australian states at the time, was that she would accept advice from her cheif minister (in this case, the Premiers of Queensland and NSW). These are important events to be discussed, because they lead to the Australia Act 1986 to resolve this anomaly. There is a direct connection between them and the Constitution Commission that recommended the bill. I read that stuff about Whitlam that you referred to. I could not understand it. It is unreferenced, and I think it is talking about these events. If it does, it misrepresents them and suggests that the editor didn't really understand it either. I'll examine it again and probably do an edit (referenced, of couse).--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- First off, there's a bit of a discrepancy in what you're saying. In the article it states Whitlam advised the Queen to dismiss the Governor, and she did so, yet, above, you say it was the Preimier of Queensland. Regardless, I don't see a cite for this specific statement, and, further, there seem to now be conflicts in sources used for this article. On one hand, we have cites that say before 1986 the premier of a state would have to "advise" the Queen via the British Secretary of State, and that an Australian Prime Minister could not advise the Queen on any state affair. On the other hand, you're saying this isn't true. These are certainly important events, but they are also complex events, and we must be wary about accuracy. --G2bambino (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Further note: David Smith is a reliable constitutional scholar; he's a professor of political science. His source, in this case, is The Chameleon Crown. Perhaps a copy of that book would shed more light on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, it's a bit complicated. I didn't say the Queen dismissed the Premier of Queensland. The Governor of Queensland was senior Governor and as such had the right to be Acting Governor-General (Administrator) of the Commonwealth. Now as Acting GG is a Commonwealth office, Whitlam could advise the Queen to withdraw that commission and he did. She followed that advice. However she did not withdraw his commission as Governor of Queensland on Whitlam's advice, because it was a state matter. She did however refuse to extend Hannah's term (for his perceived inappropriate conduct) on the advise of British officials. Constitutionally she was within her rights. But the Premier of Queensland (and other premiers) had governed in the belief that even though she was technically correct, it was the convention to be guided by her cheif minister, even in state affairs. The Wran affair was noteworthy for a smiliar reason: the Queen was being guided in a state affair not by the democratically elected leader of her government but by a British Minister of State. David Smith did not write 'The Chameleon Crown'. That was written by Twomey. David Smith, former secretary to John Kerr, wrote, 'Head of State', which I have in front of me now.--Gazzster (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- First off, there's a bit of a discrepancy in what you're saying. In the article it states Whitlam advised the Queen to dismiss the Governor, and she did so, yet, above, you say it was the Preimier of Queensland. Regardless, I don't see a cite for this specific statement, and, further, there seem to now be conflicts in sources used for this article. On one hand, we have cites that say before 1986 the premier of a state would have to "advise" the Queen via the British Secretary of State, and that an Australian Prime Minister could not advise the Queen on any state affair. On the other hand, you're saying this isn't true. These are certainly important events, but they are also complex events, and we must be wary about accuracy. --G2bambino (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Further note: David Smith is a reliable constitutional scholar; he's a professor of political science. His source, in this case, is The Chameleon Crown. Perhaps a copy of that book would shed more light on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see, I have referenced the information. I have not made any judgements. The facts speak for themselves. Twomey, a Constitutional lawyer who is a prominent reference for thjis article, deals with the issues at length. I think you misunderstand what the controversy was about: it was not about a prime minister interferring in state affairs. It was about the Sovereign interfering in state affairs. This brought into light an apparent anomaly- the Sovereign was constitutionally within her rights to be advised by London in state affairs. However, Westminster convention, practised even in the Australian states at the time, was that she would accept advice from her cheif minister (in this case, the Premiers of Queensland and NSW). These are important events to be discussed, because they lead to the Australia Act 1986 to resolve this anomaly. There is a direct connection between them and the Constitution Commission that recommended the bill. I read that stuff about Whitlam that you referred to. I could not understand it. It is unreferenced, and I think it is talking about these events. If it does, it misrepresents them and suggests that the editor didn't really understand it either. I'll examine it again and probably do an edit (referenced, of couse).--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be hugely controversial for you to put into the article what you say the Queen did. Especially as it contradicts other parts of the text here that says Whitlam couldn't, by law, advise the Queen on any state affair, either before or after 1986. Of course, we can't judge what you've written until you've written it, but I can't understand how you don't see a need to be careful so as not to imply huge constitutional blunders on EIIR's part. --G2bambino (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, I'll say it again. We were not discussing whether the Queen had acted unconstitutionally or not. Its a controversey. It's of interest.--Gazzster (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we somewhat are. It would be an interesting piece of history indeed if you could provide evidence that the Queen acted unconstitutionally. --G2bambino (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- We're not talking about whether it was constitutional or not.--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Before 1986 the only body that could advise the Queen on the appointment and dismissal of a state Governor was the British Cabinet. The Queen would have been quite out of constitutional bounds to have accepted any advice from her Australian prime minister regarding state Governors, then or now. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a fascinating topic Tharky. I'm currently working on a section for the 'history' section. It deals with the political aftermath of the 1975 crisis. The governor involved was Sir Colin Hannah, the Governor of Queensland. He was the senior governor, and, as such, acting governor when Sir John Kerr was away. Hannah publicly criticised Whitlam in the political aerena. Whitlam advised the Queen to revoke Hannahs commission. She did so. The premier of Qld, Bjelke-Petersen, protested that it was the role of the premier to advise the Queen on matters to do with a state governor. B Palace told him he was wrong. This caused a great stir amongst the state premiers. So much so that premier Wran of NSW intended to introduce a Bill abolishing the right of British ministers to advise the Queen in matters pertaining to NSW. The Brit government was horrified, and at one point castigated the NSW government for not following its advice. In the end the bill was not presented. Oh its fascinating stuff. I hope to have the new ifo up in a day or two. I tend to agree with what you said before, the styatus and role of the monarchy in Auastralia is pretty ambivalent.--Gazzster (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent) Afaik, Whitlam advised the Queen to withdraw Hannah's dormant commission to be Administrator, and that's all. There was never any suggestion that he be dismissed as Governor of Queensland; and if there ever were, that suggestion could not and would not have come from Whitlam. He, of all people, know a thing or two about sovereigns taking their advice from the appropriate constitutional authority, and the PM has nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment or dismissal of a state governor. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. The controversy arose from London refusing to extend Hannah's term against the advise of the Queen's cheif advisor (by convention) in Qld: Sir Joh. It's possible of course that Gough may have tried to persuade London to dismiss Hannah. But I have absolutely no source for that and I wouldn't suggest that in the article.--Gazzster (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I'll be interested to see what you put in the article about the Colin Hannah case. At the moment it's only a passing reference to him, plus a cite for those few who can get their hands on that source, but for most readers there's no material provided about what the case was all about, which makes the reference to him all the more tantalising (often a good thing, but a bad thing in this case). And he doesn't have his own article either. Somebody must rectify that soon. I'll add it to my to-do list, but I'm a bit busy on other matters at the moment. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would be very cool, Jack. Yes, I tried to link the name Colin Hannah, and it went red. I thought, 'hello, somethin missin here'. Apparently Anne Twomey used recently released government and B Palace docs to write her book The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors. That's where the stuff about Hannah came from. So it's possible that until recently, information about the affair just wasn't available. It'd be great if you could diog up more.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the Hannah affair is not new. It forms an interesting footnote to the Joh vs Gough saga of the time and the larger constitutional wranglings of 1975 (which eventually led to Gough's downfall). It goes without saying that Whitlam was a very controversial PM and was loathed by the Queensland Government of the day not only for his left wing politics but more importantly for interfering in what was perceived by the states as their own affairs. http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A140427b.htm gives a little bit of info on the saga, but you'll need to use your knowledge of contemporaneous events to fill in some of the gaps.Apodeictic (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would be very cool, Jack. Yes, I tried to link the name Colin Hannah, and it went red. I thought, 'hello, somethin missin here'. Apparently Anne Twomey used recently released government and B Palace docs to write her book The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors. That's where the stuff about Hannah came from. So it's possible that until recently, information about the affair just wasn't available. It'd be great if you could diog up more.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I'll be interested to see what you put in the article about the Colin Hannah case. At the moment it's only a passing reference to him, plus a cite for those few who can get their hands on that source, but for most readers there's no material provided about what the case was all about, which makes the reference to him all the more tantalising (often a good thing, but a bad thing in this case). And he doesn't have his own article either. Somebody must rectify that soon. I'll add it to my to-do list, but I'm a bit busy on other matters at the moment. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly not new as far as the public is concerned. I remember it very well - I was living in Queensland at the time, and Gough's withdrawal of Hannah's dormant commission made big headlines there, and presumably throughout Australia. But a hell of a lot happened during those turbulent years, so it's understandable if it's receded in the public memory these days. Whitlam was loathed by Joh B-P (and probably vice-versa), for political and even religious reasons (Gough was an atheist who referred to Joh as a "Bible-bashing bastard"), and anything Gough did, no matter how correct, would have been criticised out of hand by Joh, on principle. Not only was Gough's withdrawal of Hannah's commission perfectly in order (given that the Administrator is a Commonwealth, not a State, office), but it was most improper, in my view, for Joh to support his governor making utterly inappropriate public statements of a partisan political nature. Maybe thay had a private chat about it at Government House, we'll never know, but publicly Joh defended the indefensible Hannah. But then, he was good at that sort of thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)