Talk:Monarchy of Australia

message: :::::::::::::::::::Proposed addition to infobox
An editor has attempted twice to include the governor-general (David Hurley) into the infobox of this page, with King Charles III. I disagree with inclusion, as this page is about the Australian monarchy. We have a separate page on the Governor-General of Australia & that's where the governor-general's image/etc belongs. We don't include the GG in the infobox at the Canadian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy etc pages. So we shouldn't here. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If we include the GG, we should include the governors as well...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should just have the monarch in the infobox, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ....just one. Moxy- 03:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Just to repeat my argument for change I made in the edit box, as this page is about the role of the monarchy as an institution in Australia, rather than the on the role of the monarch as an individual and as the GG performs most of the roles of the monarch and is the individual that does most royal thing in the Australian context, I thought it would be a good idea to include a picture at the top. Maybe a seperate infobox or other picture would be useful to emphasise the difference? Safes007 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything can be in the infobox, and the Governor-General for all their roles is not the Monarch. There is a page at Governor-General of Australia which has the Governor-General image in the infobox, but not the Monarch's. CMD (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

text: It's entirely unnecessary and it splits off the details at the bottom of the infobox from the person it relates to at the top of the infobox which is problematic. TarnishedPathtalk 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the governor-general be in the top infobox 

message: Although Charles III is Australia's head of state, he is *not* King by the grace of God, or by virtue of an Anglican coronation ceremony. 
This ceremony only relates to his title of King of the United Kingdom. Nor is he King of Australia *because* he is King of the United Kingdom. These two titles are quite separate. Nor does Charles have any religious role by virtue of being King of Australia - there is no established church in Australia. That is why there was no coronation ceremony in Australia.
Charles is King of Australia solely by virtue of the Australian Constitution, which was ratified by the Australian people at referendums between 1898 and 1900, and which can be changed only by the Australian people at a constitutional referendum.
At the 1999 referendum, the Australian people voted to retain the constitutional monarchy, which is why Charles was proclaimed King of Australia on the death of the late Queen. He and his successors will retain that title unless and until the Australian people decide otherwise at a referendum. 
So, the notion written above that if the UK abruptly and without warning became a republic next week, as it could and can do with no written constitution, the new British President would be Australia's head of state is wrong as the House of Windsor would remain the monarchs of our separate Australian monarchy until and if a referendum was called and passed according to the requirements of s. 128.
That is why every member of Parliament (even you, Senator Lidia Thorpe) takes an oath of allegiance to the King, and why the Prime Minister (despite being a lifelong republican) took that oath at the Coronation. This oath is of course conditional, because it is oath of allegiance to the King and his heirs and successors *according to law *and, in Australia, that means according to the Constitution.
If the Australian people vote to change the Constitution, they and he will be released from that oath. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Charles get any say in all this? HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, no. Mister Mountbatten-Windsor cannot change Australia's constitution upon a whim as the ability to do so is not mentioned in the procedure set forth in s, 128. 180.150.38.126 (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a reliable source that makes this specific claim, this might be relevant, but until then this isn't relevant for a wikipedia article. Safes007 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further to "Pete" above 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No move Wikipedia:Snowball clause. (closed by non-admin page mover) Moxy🍁 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Monarchy of Australia →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also a better sounding and better fitting name. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Disagree for the above reasons. If you look at the first reference, it describes Australia as a monarchy, a federation and a democracy. Safes007 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose move - as we've got Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Denmark, Monarchy of Belgium etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose the change would be inconsistent with similar articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 April 2024