Australia is removing the British monarchy from its bank notes

Do Australians wish to abolish the monarchy? I'm just curious because I've heard a lot of this recently.
 
chic said:
Do Australians wish to abolish the monarchy? I'm just curious because I've heard a lot of this recently.
Click to expand...
As much as I love the monarchy, the next generation of Aussies won't acknowledge the monarchy as head of state.
It might be time to stand on our own, that's not to say that we want to abolish it, as far as I am concerned we can still remain, members of the Commonwealth, just not acknowledge the Crown as head of state.
 

The $5 note is the only one that has always featured the Queen.
Every other bank note has featured Australians since 1966 when we changed to decimal currency.

Australian coins have featured every monarch since federation (1901) starting with Edward VII
 
The vast majority of Australians (apart from the Aborigines) are descended from British people, many of them criminals who were exiled. I see no reason why they shouldn't regard Australia as being totally independent but it would be nice if they acknowledged their origins in some way. If they keep their flag as it is, that will be sufficient.
 
What Aussies do is their business. Coming from a "bunch of rebels", it's hard for me to understand why Aussies still hold on to a British monarchy. The squabbles now in the royal family, and how Charles married his mistress, and left his dead ex-wife, plus for the foreseeable future the monarchy will be old men may weaken that idea.
 
Lavinia said:
The vast majority of Australians (apart from the Aborigines) are descended from British people, many of them criminals who were exiled. I see no reason why they shouldn't regard Australia as being totally independent but it would be nice if they acknowledged their origins in some way. If they keep their flag as it is, that will be sufficient.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those descendants of transported convicts, as well as free settlers from England, Ireland and Scotland. I grew up believing that I was British but a trip to UK in 1985 showed me that I was not. I came home questioning what it is to be Australian because post WW II our population has grown to include many people from Europe and Asia. It has always included the indigenous people who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Now that our much loved Queen Elizabeth has died, it is time to revisit the question of becoming a republic and when that happens we will need a new flag that does not feature the Union Jack. Canada already has such a flag. It is not a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of national identity and pride.

I rather like this design. I don't want to see something kitschy featuring a kangaroo or a boomerang.

 
Warrigal said:
I'm one of those descendants of transported convicts, as well as free settlers from England, Ireland and Scotland. I grew up believing that I was British but a trip to UK in 1985 showed me that I was not. I came home questioning what it is to be Australian because post WW II our population has grown to include many people from Europe and Asia. It has always included the indigenous people who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Now that our much loved Queen Elizabeth has died, it is time to revisit the question of becoming a republic and when that happens we will need a new flag that does not feature the Union Jack. Canada already has such a flag. It is not a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of national identity and pride.

I rather like this design. I don't want to see something kitschy featuring a kangaroo or a boomerang.

Click to expand...
So do tell Warri, what nationality are your origins ?
 
Warrigal said:
Mother's side from Devon and Cork; father's side from Brixton and Glasgow. The couple of early convicts were both from south of England.
Click to expand...
... Brixton ( London )..not too far from here ... and Glasgow...wow ! that's a real hard man mix ( having been born and raised in Glasgow myself ) ... Devon and Cork, just the opposite ( having lived in Devon as a Young bride)
 
Warrigal said:
Mother's side from Devon and Cork; father's side from Brixton and Glasgow. The couple of early convicts were both from south of England.
Click to expand...
Is this something you have been aware of for a long time, through an already known family history, or in part something you discovered through relatively recent research?
 
We began looking into family history around the time of the bicentennial (1988) by talking to older relatives and obtaining birth, death and marriage certificates from the State Registrar. Our daughter has gone much deeper using Ancestry. We were unable to go further back than 1863 (post transportation) but she has uncovered a lot more earlier information.

I have a copy of the diary of the voyage to Australia on a sailing ship written by the father from Tiverton, Devon, who emigrated in 1863 with his wife and four children to Sydney. He settled west of the mountains in Orange where he opened a grocery shop. He was my great great grandfather on Mum's side. One of his three sons later migrated to California.
 
Warrigal said:
I'm one of those descendants of transported convicts, as well as free settlers from England, Ireland and Scotland. I grew up believing that I was British but a trip to UK in 1985 showed me that I was not. I came home questioning what it is to be Australian because post WW II our population has grown to include many people from Europe and Asia. It has always included the indigenous people who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Now that our much loved Queen Elizabeth has died, it is time to revisit the question of becoming a republic and when that happens we will need a new flag that does not feature the Union Jack. Canada already has such a flag. It is not a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of national identity and pride.

I rather like this design. I don't want to see something kitschy featuring a kangaroo or a boomerang.

Click to expand...
How might becoming a Republic work for Australia? Just curious.

My understanding of a Republic (someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not an expert on this), is a nation that has an elected ‘Head of State’. Without a head of state, it’s not a republic, I think.

Would Australia therefore have an elected president as head of state, and the powers that a President usually has, which would take some powers away from your long established elected Parliamentary Democracy. Are people in Australia willing to give up some powers of their collective members of Parliament, & give them to one person, a President?

Both France & Russia have a Parliament & President. One of those nations is relatively stable, the other isn’t. The USA has a President, but not a Parliament, and the USA is somewhat stable. Would Australia go the way of the USA, I wonder, and have no Parliament?

I believe the current situation, again please correct me if I’m wrong, is that King Charles III is Head of State of Australia, with no powers over its government. King Charles III does have a representative in Australia, in the form of the Governor-General who is Australian. ‘Chosen’ by the British monarch, but only ’chosen’ on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister. The Governor-General can only be changed on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister. The king can’t appoint or change the Governor-General without the Australian Prime Ministers say so, because in reality, the king has no power.

The British king is not involved in Australian politics. In a way then, isn’t the Governor-General the ‘acting’ Head of State of Australia, with no real influence from the king?

What might you think would be lost or gained if Australia rejected the King as head of state, a purely symbolic position? How might Australia’s political system then change?

I wonder, are there any Parliamentary Democracies around the world without a Head of State. In that situation, would the Prime Minister then become a kind of Head of State, with the additional powers that that might entail. Which then might be in conflict with the running of the elected Parlement.

If I were to actually think about it, I might be able to come up with a 100 more questions. Which a nation might have to address if it changes its political system. Anyway, just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
We began looking into family history around the time of the bicentennial (1988) by talking to older relatives and obtaining birth, death and marriage certificates from the State Registrar. Our daughter has gone much deeper using Ancestry. We were unable to go further back than 1863 (post transportation) but she has uncovered a lot more earlier information.

I have a copy of the diary of the voyage to Australia on a sailing ship written by the father from Tiverton, Devon, who emigrated in 1863 with his wife and four children to Sydney. He settled west of the mountains in Orange where he opened a grocery shop. He was my great great grandfather on Mum's side. One of his three sons later migrated to California.
Click to expand...
I find other peoples family history interesting. As for mine, they are very much Welsh on my dad's side, & Irish & Scottish on my mum’s side. With some relatives emigrating to Pennsylvania via New York from Liverpool.
 
Magna-Carta said:
How might becoming a Republic work for Australia? Just curious.
It would require a national referendum to be held first to determine the agreement of the people. The last one failed.
My understanding of a Republic (someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not an expert on this), is a nation that has an elected ‘Head of State’. Without a head of state, it’s not a republic, I think.
That is why the last one failed. The model presented did not allow for an election. In that model the President would be chosen by the Prime Minister to be a merely symbolic Head of State with very few powers.
Would Australia therefore have an elected president as head of state, and the powers that a President usually has, which would take some powers away from your long established elected Parliamentary Democracy. Are people in Australia willing to give up some powers of their collective members of Parliament, & give them to one person, a President?
Most Australians would be appalled to have a US style presidency. We have a parliamentary system of bicameral government with elections roughly every 3 years. We don't want a president with powers to veto legislation passed by parliament. Most of us just want a bit of choice in the selection of our own head of state.
Both France & Russia have a Parliament & President. One of those nations is relatively stable, the other isn’t. The USA has a President, but not a Parliament, and the USA is somewhat stable. Would Australia go the way of the USA, I wonder, and get rid of its Parliament?
Absolutely not. I personally favour the Irish system.
I believe the current situation, again please correct me if I’m wrong, is that King Charles III is Head of State of Australia, with no powers over its government. King Charles III does have a representative in Australia, in the form of the Governor-General who is Australian. ‘Chosen’ by the British monarch, but only ’chosen’ on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister. The Governor-General can only be changed on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister. The king can’t change him without the Australian Prime Ministers say so, because in reality, the king has no power.
100% correct. However, the GG does have some 'reserve powers' under the Crown that the Monarch does not have in UK. You may have heard of The Dismissal. It refers to the 1975 sacking of the Whitlam Government by the then GG, Sir John Kerr. Because the Senate was holding up supply he gave the Opposition Leader the authority to form a new government provided he passed the supply bill and then called for a general election of both houses of parliament (double dissolution). It was an extraordinary move that could never happen in UK.
The British king is not involved in Australian politics. In a way then, isn’t the Governor-General the ‘acting’ Head of State of Australia, with no real influence from the king?
Correct. That is not the issue. The issue is that we want an Australian head of state.
What might you think would be lost or gained if Australia rejected the King as head of state, a purely symbolic position? How might Australia’s political system then change?
Hopefully, very little. The Royal Family do not belong to us. When abroad they represent British, not Australian trade issues. When UK joined the EU we were suddenly locked out of our customary relationships with the Mother Country. We have had to grow up, stand on our own feet and the old ties that bind are a lot weaker now. When we become a republic we will have finally come of age as a sovereign nation.
I wonder, are there any Parliamentary Democracies around the world without a Head of State. In that situation, would the Prime Mister then become Head of State, with the additional powers that that might entail. Which then might be in conflict with the running of the elected Parliament.
Not that I am aware of.
If I were to actually think about it, I might be able to come up with a 100 more questions. Which a nation might have to address if it changes its political system. Anyway, just a thought.
Click to expand...
 
A really quick response there from you Warrigal. Thank you for your replay.

In a way, I kind of anticipated some of the answers. Especially the answer you gave regarding the USA system. Maybe i just wanted to hear you say it? I suppose I was just thinking aloud. Thank you for your clarity. It straightens some things up that immediately came to mind.

The thing you say about the model presented being one of the Presidents being chosen by the Prime Minister, seems back to front. Not sure how that might be workable. And a President without authority what so ever? It would seem that it wouldn't be long before the people of Australia would then start thinking of what’s the point of the President, and concider getting rid of the position all together. Then back to square one?

It seems that what initially might seem like a minor change, the removing of a King as ‘head of state’ has some real complications that would need addressing. Some challenging ones.
 
Last edited:
There is another complication that I just thought of.

All of the six former colonies, now states, also have governors appointed in the same way that the GG is, i.e. they represent the Crown. It would be very paradoxical if that situation were to continue should Australia become a republic.
 
Warrigal said:
There is another complication that I just thought of.

All of the six former colonies, now states, also have governors appointed in the same way that the GG is, i.e. they represent the Crown. It would be very paradoxical if that situation were to continue should Australia become a republic.
Click to expand...
Then even more complex than I originaly thought.

Does anyone see the British monarchy as head of state as a good thing or… some kind of benefit in some way, that other nations will never be able to have? Does it give some a sense of ‘stability’ in some way. The US system, in my mind at least, seems to inadvertently encourage some destructive divisions.

I suppose I’m trying to say that a monarchy being present, or some other form of long established organisation (for want of a better phrase – I’m just thinking as i'm typing), might provide an idea on a long term outlook, as opposed to an outlook that’s only based on a short parliament or political term.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top