on it being odd. Antony, I have just re-read my constitution and discovered clause 2 of the Australian Constitution which states "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." Does this mean that the Australian Constitution operates to identify who the successor of the Queen is by reference to the law in the UK? COMMENT: No. You are reading clause 2 of the British Act of Parliament to which the Australian Constitution was a Schedule. It includes a series of definitions that applied to the Constitution. The Statute of Westminster meant the British Parliament gave up its right to legislate for Australia, so Britain can no longer amend those provisions. The staturte also divided the crowns of the Commonwealth nations who had the then King as head of state. The Governor General is now the representative of the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. The monarch of the UK would not automatically the monarch of Australia if the UK were to amend its legislation. Some of this was first dealt with in the 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act, a bill that was unusually reserved for the Queen herself to sign on her first visit in 1953. Further to the comment "in theory the future monarchs of the two countries could diverge," another (and more recent) example of this phenomenon took place in 1890 when the accession of a Queen