Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 → |
Contents |
Dominion
Of course, unlike Canada, Australia was never classified as a Dominion in any official capacity until 1907. However, the Buckingham Palace website states: "The modern Commonwealth of Australia dates from 1901. In January of that year the former British colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania joined under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, which became an independent dominion of the British Empire." Perhaps they are being slightly misleading by classifying the Commonwealth between 1901 and 1931 as "independent," but Dominion seems to apply as a Dominion, in this context, is described as "an autonomous community of the British Empire and British Commonwealth, prior to 1948." So, Australia pre-1907 could be classified as a having fit the characteristics of a Dominion, but was not officially recognised as such until the Imperial Conference of that year. --G2bambino (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PS - Why do you ask, Gazzster, "what reference?" It would be the one immediately following the statement, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I can't see how a Dominion is a dominion before the name is even used. But actually, the tern 'dominion' is another word for colony. In 1907 at a Colonial Conference Britain decided to distinguish the 'great colonies' (Aus, Can, Cape Colony, Natal, NZ, Transval) with the name 'dominion' 'because that term confused their status with that of crown (coloured) colonies lacking self-government.' The edit I made uses both terms to avoid all ambiguity. I don't understand why you have to repeatedly remove term one and not the other.--Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Simple: the source uses one term and not the other. I also had a look at the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and could find no reference to the Commonwealth as a "self-governing colony." Could you perhaps guide me to the relevant clause? --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here: 'The Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes' . of that Act.'[1]
- I see it now, thank you. It does, however, say the Commonwealth is to be considered a self-governing colony only for the purpose of the Colonial Boundaries Act, and I will still assert that "Dominion" and "self-govering colony" are essentially synonyms, and the Buck House source does still say Australia became a dominion in 1901, but, I will rest on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here: 'The Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes' . of that Act.'[1]
- Simple: the source uses one term and not the other. I also had a look at the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and could find no reference to the Commonwealth as a "self-governing colony." Could you perhaps guide me to the relevant clause? --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see how a Dominion is a dominion before the name is even used. But actually, the tern 'dominion' is another word for colony. In 1907 at a Colonial Conference Britain decided to distinguish the 'great colonies' (Aus, Can, Cape Colony, Natal, NZ, Transval) with the name 'dominion' 'because that term confused their status with that of crown (coloured) colonies lacking self-government.' The edit I made uses both terms to avoid all ambiguity. I don't understand why you have to repeatedly remove term one and not the other.--Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Looking at the sequence of events, it seems that at first only Canada was perceived of as a Dominion, and had a unique quasi-independent status within the empire for more than 30 years before it was decided to apply a similar set-up to Australia, at which time a new term, Commonwealth, was devised for the new entity. Had this gone on a new term would have had to be found for each new realm, so perhaps it was decided that all, after all were Dominions since they were all modelled on Canada, and the term retrospectively applied to Australia. Typical British way of doing things - make it up as you go along and then pretend it was all planned. TharkunColl (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the British needed a way of distinguishing the 'great colonies', with self-government, from other colonies directly ruled. It wasn't the best move, since the constitutions of all the dominions were different. And the term had nothing to do with having a semi-independent status, since the application of dominion predates the Balfour Declaration by almost three decades. Fascinating stuff (I think anyway lol) For all I know there is a mighty collective snore from the editors!--Gazzster (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the sequence of events, it seems that at first only Canada was perceived of as a Dominion, and had a unique quasi-independent status within the empire for more than 30 years before it was decided to apply a similar set-up to Australia, at which time a new term, Commonwealth, was devised for the new entity. Had this gone on a new term would have had to be found for each new realm, so perhaps it was decided that all, after all were Dominions since they were all modelled on Canada, and the term retrospectively applied to Australia. Typical British way of doing things - make it up as you go along and then pretend it was all planned. TharkunColl (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It may have been something to do with the granting of self-rule to New Zealand in - I believe - 1907. That was just a single colony and no federation took place, merely a change in the competence of its administration. Perhaps it was then that the term Dominion was chosen as a general term, rather than being specific to Canada. And on a related note, doesn't the Australian Constitution state that New Zealand has the right to join the Australian Commonwealth at any time it chooses? This is presumably still in force. TharkunColl (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that's correct. NZ still has an open invitation. Of course it's unlikely to be accepted. And we're quite happy for our brethren across the Tasman to enjoy their independence!--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really correct to say that under the Australian Constitution New Zealand has the "right" or even "an invitation" to join the Commonwealth of Australia. A "right" would imply that NZ can join regardless of the Australian attitude to this -- and this simply isn't the case. During the initial stages of planning for federation, the possibility of NZ joining was a real one. But by the time the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was enacted by the Westminster Parliament in 1900, the possibility of NZ joining the Commonwealth of Australia as an original state was no longer realistic. But since NZ was right next door and had a relatively small population it was still possible that NZ (along with other nearby British possessions such as some of the islands in the Western Pacific) would wish to join at a future date. The preamble reflects this by stating: "Whereas the people of [the current Australian states] have agreed to unite ... and whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen". This just states the political reality of the time that (in the eyes of the British Government) it was "expedient" (i.e. made sense) for other nearby British colonies to jump on the federation bandwagon. One large British colony would have been more viable than several small ones. NZ does, however, get explicit mention in one of the covering clauses. The definition of "the states" in covering clause 6 includes reference to NZ. If you read this carefully it does not say that NZ *is* a state of the Commonwealth or even that it *has the right to become* a state. Rather it simply says that if it did join then it would be a state for the purposes of the Australian Constitution. Since it didn't join at the time of Federation the only possibility of NZ joining is now under Chapter VI of the Constitution which deals with the admission or establishment of new states. If NZ wanted to join, it would -- along with anyone else who wanted to join -- have to do so according to the provisions of s 121 which states that "The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent or representation in either House of Parliament, as it thinks fit". That's not a right. It's entirely up to the Australian Parliament whether NZ -- or anyone else for that matter -- can join. But again, the chances of NZ joining now are of course almost non-existent.Apodeictic (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. NZ still has an open invitation. Of course it's unlikely to be accepted. And we're quite happy for our brethren across the Tasman to enjoy their independence!--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- It may have been something to do with the granting of self-rule to New Zealand in - I believe - 1907. That was just a single colony and no federation took place, merely a change in the competence of its administration. Perhaps it was then that the term Dominion was chosen as a general term, rather than being specific to Canada. And on a related note, doesn't the Australian Constitution state that New Zealand has the right to join the Australian Commonwealth at any time it chooses? This is presumably still in force. TharkunColl (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Defender of the Faith (DF)
In 1973 the Parliament of Australia enacted a new Royal Styles and Titles Act, establishing the Queen's present Australian title. This Act removed specific reference to the United Kingdom as well as reference to the sovereign as "Defender of the Faith", a title which has been borne by all English – and subsequently British – monarchs since 1521 when Pope Leo X granted the title to Henry VIII.
- Just a thought about the highlighted words. The current DF title borne by the UK monarch is not the same one as that conferred by Leo X. He excommunicated Henry VIII and revoked the title, and the English Parliament re-conferred a title of the same name. The original title was about defence of the Catholic faith; the new title was about defence of the Church of England. The wording makes it appear that the Leo-conferred title is still the one borne by UK monarchs, when that is not the case. Any thoughts about alternative wording? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Those words were originally mine and I have no objection to them going for the sake of concision (people can read the article fidei defensor if they're interested in the meaning and history of the title) but the suggestion that they need to go because they were wrong or misleading needs to be addressed. Nowhere did those words say or even imply that the Queen of the UK (or Canada or NZ for that mater) continues to hold that title by papal warrant. Any reasonable reading of the sentence says two things: (1) In 1521 Pope Leo conferred the title "fidei defensor" on Henry VIII and (2) Since 1521 every reigning English (and from 1707 British) monarch has borne the title "fidei defensor". Those words cannot reasonably be read to say anything about the basis upon which the sovereign continues to bear that title. As you correctly point out, it is by Act of Parliament.
-
- A lot could be said in response to your claim about Pope Leo's title applying to the "Catholic" faith as opposed to the current title conferred by Parliament applying to the "Church of England" but I'll limit myself to one brief remark here. The situation is a little bit more complicated than you suggest since at the heart of the divide between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation is a dispute about what it means to be truly "catholic" (and who is a "catholic"). The Church of England claims to be "catholic" and that the split from Rome was an affirmation rather than a denial of the Catholic Faith. In any event I'm sure we're all agreed that this isn't something we need to spend our time debating here in an article on the Australian monarchy :-) Apodeictic (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Slimming Down
Lots of stuff is repeated in other places, often several times. I'd like to slim it down, without deleting cited material. And there's a lot of uncited material too.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Slim away, Gazz. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
International and domestic aspects
I respectfully disagree with some of the recent changes here. Originally the paragraph was structured to reflect the fact that our understandings of the role of the Crown among the realms developed in a different era and with the changes to the monarchy that have taken place in more recent years there is now uncertainty. That's gone out the window as editors have seen fit to imply certainties where there are none.
The reference to the "traditional" understanding of the Crown was to that at the height of the Empire and at the inception of the nascent Commonwealth. That is to be contrasted with the present situation where we now have a distinct monarchy in each of the realms. Two implications of the "traditional" understanding were mentioned – (1) the impossibility of receiving ambassadors (and the practice of receiving High Commissioners instead) and (2) the impossibility of war with another territory of the Crown – followed by a statement that the development of a distinct Australian monarchy has raised doubts about the continued vitality of these understandings.
Could the Queen of Australia receive an Ambassador from the Queen of NZ (as opposed to the Queen's Government in Australia receiving a High Commissioner from the Queen's Government in NZ)? Or could the Queen of Australia declare war on the Queen of NZ? Well under the traditional understanding the answer was a clear "no". Now the answer is (legally speaking) "we don't really know". There are other areas (such as citizenship) where the law has had to catch up with the reality of a distinct monarchy in each of the various realms. But it would be a mistake to think that this then automatically applies to the case of international relations (eg ambassadors and war). This is a classic case of political necessities being the drivers of changes in the way we legally conceptualise the Crown. Since there's no politcial necessity in thse respects (NZ hasn't tried to send an ambassador as opposed to a high commisioner or hasn't yet declared war on Australia!) there's been no need to reconceptualise our legal understanding of the Crown in these areas. In plain English, the situation is uncertain. Apodeictic (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- G'day! I was the one who slimmed that passage. I believed, and still believe, that the material was adequately covered by other areas. While you raise some interesting questions, I suggest they are too theoretical to be of any real value. I do tip my hat to your scholarship and passion. About the possibility of war between two realms, though- if two realms went to war for reasons yet unforeseen: well, if they felt they were compelled to go to war they wouldn't say 'we can't because we both have the same Queen', would they? So I think the possibility of the Queen being at war with herself, so to speak (lol) is a practical dilema.--Gazzster (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have no objections to the article being slimmed. It's certainly true that there was a lot of duplication of material before I started contributing. At the time I didn't really see myself as an editor. I just got to work section by section fixing up some inaccuracies as well as expanding on information that was incomplete. The task of editing/ rearranging the article down to remove duplication is a big one which needs to be done -- so keep up the work. I fully accept the point that some things may only be of theoretical interest. Perhaps the point about the possibility of war is one of these. I suppose I was reacting more to your description of the edit in the article history (saying that the Queen of NZ can declare war on the Queen of Aus which is in fact uncertain) than to the fact that the material was removed from the article :-) Apodeictic (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- One more thing (not intended to alter what I said above). The point about war is not entirely moot. No-one denies that actual fighting (a de facto war) could break out between two Commonwealth realms. The point, however, is not aimed at the de facto status of the fighting but rather at its de jure status. In other words: how would the Australian legal system treat armed conflict between Australia and another Commonwealth realm? Whether two countries are de jure at "war" or not has real implications for real people. One obvious one is for the citizens of the country with which Australia is at war. These people suddenly become "enemy aliens" (as opposed to friendly aliens) which would affect their legal rights against the Australian Government. Apodeictic (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this helps or not, but there already has been war between realms; namely, between Pakistan and India, where King George VI was at war with himself as both King of India and King of Pakistan. There was also the issue of Grenada. But, of course, those aren't directly related to Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I'm aware of both the India-Pakistan and Grenada conflicts and while providing some food for thought uncertainties still remain. This is an area where the law hasn't really caught up with the political reality of such a possibility. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced a Wikipedia article on the monarchy of Australia is not the appropriate place for a treatment of this interesting but difficult topic which is probably best left to a different forum altogether. You can't say everything in a Wikipedia article. Apodeictic (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Though it would be cool if someone (hint, hint) could deal with some of these constitutional anomalies; maybe at Commonwealth realm?--Gazzster (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hint duly taken :-) It – along with a thousand other things – is now on my 'to do' list. Some of the stuff I've already contributed to the monarchy of Australia article may actually better belong in the Commonwealth Realm article. Eventually I'll get around to it. Apodeictic (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Though it would be cool if someone (hint, hint) could deal with some of these constitutional anomalies; maybe at Commonwealth realm?--Gazzster (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing (not intended to alter what I said above). The point about war is not entirely moot. No-one denies that actual fighting (a de facto war) could break out between two Commonwealth realms. The point, however, is not aimed at the de facto status of the fighting but rather at its de jure status. In other words: how would the Australian legal system treat armed conflict between Australia and another Commonwealth realm? Whether two countries are de jure at "war" or not has real implications for real people. One obvious one is for the citizens of the country with which Australia is at war. These people suddenly become "enemy aliens" (as opposed to friendly aliens) which would affect their legal rights against the Australian Government. Apodeictic (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
List of Australian monarchs?
An article, List of Australian monarchs has been created. A link to it has been added to tis article. Someone went to effort to do it. But I do wonder what purpose it serves. The monarchs of Australia are listed here. And after all, there is no difference between a list of Australian monarchs and a list of Canadian monarchs or New Zealand monarchs or Jamaican monarchs, is there?--Gazzster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd recommend the section being reduced to merely pointing out other article. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or referring to List of monarchs of the United Kingdom.--Gazzster (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Queen of Australia vs queen of Australia
I would redirect queen of Australia here but would redirect Queen of Australia to Elizabeth II as she is the only monarch ever to have held this title.. What do you think? --Camaeron (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- E2--Gazzster (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
List
G2, if you're going to delete the list of monarchs on this page on the grounds that is unecessary (the list is replicated at List of Australian monarchs), doesn't it make more sense the delete the latter, since it by far the newer article? We need to sort of LoAM's fate on its own page.--Gazzster (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it appears to me that the majority of editors involved in the discussion around these two articles had a preference for deleting the list here. Or, did I count wrong? --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember that. Even if they did, a small majority does not a consensus make, as you have remarked on many occasions.--Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I didn't talk about a consensus. Just being bold, especially while wondering how long the discussion at Talk:List of Australian monarchs is supposed to go on. I don't think anyone has anything new to offer. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It will go long for as long as the editors feel it needs to go on to make a consensus. Opinions change, which is why discussion is good. After all, you agreed in principle to a single list. That's progress. And you never know: I might even make a concession too! Can't blame u for trying! Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- *shakes head* I never said I agreed, in any way, to a single list; I said I was open to the possibility of one if a proposed outline of what it would look like were put forward. I've been saying that for some time now. Regardless, no use in another lengthy discussion here on the same topic. --G2bambino (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It will go long for as long as the editors feel it needs to go on to make a consensus. Opinions change, which is why discussion is good. After all, you agreed in principle to a single list. That's progress. And you never know: I might even make a concession too! Can't blame u for trying! Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I didn't talk about a consensus. Just being bold, especially while wondering how long the discussion at Talk:List of Australian monarchs is supposed to go on. I don't think anyone has anything new to offer. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember that. Even if they did, a small majority does not a consensus make, as you have remarked on many occasions.--Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
