The Australian Government - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade disagrees with you.
Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/protocol-guidelines/1-introduction-to-australia-and-its-system-of-government
She more or less had to, pending re-organisation/redecoration of the private accommodation in both. Rumour has it that she got a bit irritated at her mother’s dilatoriness in moving out of BP and into CH, and/or the time it took to get the work done, but who knows for sure?
A lot of things will probably change behind the scenes, but “front of house” things will carry on with only gradual change after testing the waters of public reaction (if any). That’s how it’s always worked so far
It seems exceptionally unlikely that the major decisions as to how Charles will use Buckingham Palace haven’t already been taken. The building is currently undergoing a massive refurbishment that won’t be finished until the latter part of the decade. There is the suspicion that this was long delayed so that it would something to be tackled in the new reign, but that the Queen’s longevity has forced them to go ahead while she is still alive. Anyway, Charles must have been consulted and his intentions taken on board. Doubtless the argument will be either that the money is justified because he will make full use of the building as King or, conversely, that it is justified because more of the building will be made accessible to the public.
Your visit to these fair shores seems to have made quite an impression though 20 years of faded reminiscences have made you what zip for five vs actuality.
You have cited a policy statement and that’s fair squeeze but the constitutional position is rather different.
The current advice from the Chief Justice of the High Court is that that were the Queen of Australia to in the country on official business that the Governor General, her appointed on advice of the Australian Prime Minister] representative, remains Head of State.
This is unlike the other Commonwealth Nations.
What happens when a monarch commutes across town; will they have to shut down streets and reroute traffic every time Charles goes from his home to his office? That might be convenient for Chuck, but it sounds like a pain in the ass for everybody else.
I’ll readily admit that I rely on Google when I want to look up an answer to a question, or wish to refresh my memory on a subject. The Australian government website I cited seemed reliable.
Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/protocol-guidelines/1-introduction-to-australia-and-its-system-of-government
But since you have a difference of factual belief, I decided to check other sources.
I presume that the text of the Australian constitution is indisputable:
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
That doesn’t quite explicitly state that the Queen is head of state of Australia, but it certainly reads as having that intention.
And just in case you disagree with my reading of that chapter of the Australia constitution, there’s a detailed overview of the Australian constitution from the Australian Parliament website, a pdf link at the top.
It states:
As well as being a federation, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Under this system of government, as the term
suggests, the head of State of a country is a monarch whose functions are regulated by a constitution.
My reminiscences may be faded, but your disputes of them do seem to be a bit clouded as well.
My guess is the latter. It’s going to be another house museum.
Wikipedia has a good summary of the issue:
Which will have the probably intended consequence of taking out his next youngest brother and head off any evil plots Andrew might have on taking the Crown for himself.
I figure if we can have a long thread on the effects of replacing the host of Jeopardy, a thread on the effects of replacing the British monarch is a legit topic.
We’re talking about buildings that are almost on top of each other, along about 500 metres of The Mall, which isn’t a major route for through traffic. For other trips, a couple of motorbike outriders will get traffic to pull over while the royal’s car goes through, with another couple of outriders behind. It’s a delay of a minute or two at most. I saw it myself once as William was going home to Kensington Palace, in the evening rush hour along Kensington Gore. All very slick.
I’m in my 70s, and I remember Elizabeth II’s Coronation.
If Monaco’s reigning family dies out, they get annexed by France, and have to pay French income taxes.
True, but Charles has expressed his opinions about modern architecture.
Cite:
Google “Prince Charles on Modern Architecture” for many more references.
Sure. But he has no power to do anything about it.
For all the reputation that Charles has for meddling, has he ever gone as far as the Queen did in 1977 to publicly express opposition to major legislative proposals? The Labour government in office at the time had been elected on a manifesto that included the creation of devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, and yet she went before both houses of Parliament to state pretty clearly (for her) that she wasn’t very happy about it.
The problems of progress, the complexities of modern administration, the feeling that Metropolitan Government is too remote from the lives of ordinary men and women, these among other things have helped to revive an awareness of historic national identities in these Islands. They provide the background for the continuing and keen discussion of proposals for devolution to Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom.
I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and Princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations.
But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.
Apologies for the belated reply but time zones, return to work, that sort of stuff.
Hence this is a fundamentally different situation to other Commonwealth countries e.g. New Zealand and Canada where that statement is explicit.
With that piece of deft drafting Australia effectively became independent when Queen Victoria signed the Royal Commission of Assent 9 July 1900 without all that troublesome and bloody War of Independence thing.
Certainly it wasn’t acknowledged by the British at the time, (or by some Australian departments now) nor did Victoria have any intention of handing over one of her possessions. Indeed, Victoria appended with the founding documents with her royal assent the Letters Patent, instructions for her choice of representative (Lord Hopetoun) creating a vice-regal officer “who shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure … such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him … but subject to this Constitution”.
The idea here being that the GG was appointed by the Crown and served to ensure the best interests of Britain in trade and diplomacy were maintained in the newly founded commonwealth.
But the codicil, a legacy of the victory of Parliament over the King from 17th century English Civil War renders the Letters Patent themselves unconstitutional.
The prerogative of the Crown to appoint the role Australian Governor General to a favoured British aristocrat was challenged in 1930 when Prime Minister Scullin nominated then Chief Justice of the High Court Isaacs Isaacs to be Governor General. Initially King George V was opposed to the idea but eventually consented. Which became the current protocol that the Monarch of Australia’s only constitutional role is to appoint the person nominated by the Australian Prime Minister.
Again, unlike other members of the Commonwealth, the powers of the Australian Constitution i.e. the Federal Executive Council, the head of the military and the reserve powers are all vested with the Governor General.
Prior to the 1954 royal visit to Australia, the first by a reigning monarch, the Government wanted to involve the Queen in some formal processes of government. But advise from the Government’s legal advisers ie the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court was that:
Consequently, though in the past a regular visitor QEII has never, during these tours of Australia, exercised any of the constitutional powers vested with the Governor General. And has never done so while in the UK.
On the other hand, the Governor General, exercises them constantly without controversy.
So even if QEII was the Australian Head of State, you couldn’t tell the difference.
You might make the argument that under the Australian Constitution there are two heads of state—a symbolic head of state in the Sovereign, and a constitutional head of state in the Governor-General.
I’ve heard arguments like this before, which point out that countries like Australia and Canada were able to work out agreements with Britain to become independent countries, unlike the United States which fought a war for its independence. I feel the implication in many such cases is that America could have done the same if it had just worked a little harder or been a little smarter.
Perhaps that’s true. But a counter-argument is that the reason why Australia and Canada found Britain willing to negotiate a peaceful agreement was because the historic example of the American Revolution was there on the table.