Talk:Monarchy of Australia

Photo licence

ping..user:cloventt Is the image of king and queen with the harbour bridge in the background subject to copyright? It was supplied to Commons by a sock who has been blocked. He had added other such copyrighted royal photos to Commons and is part of a lengthy discussion here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

King's style

Hello all,

I have removed the claim that the King's formal style begins with "King", this claim seems to come from the proclamation of accession's use of the the word immediately prior to the title. I do not believe this warrants claim that the King's style actually starts with the the word, for three reasons:

1) The preceding "King" is absent in formal documents signed by the King, such as the Commission appointing Sam Mostyn as Governor-General (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024G00395/asmade/text), as well as the Commission appointing Margaret Gardner as Governor of Victoria, the only state Governor appointed so far under the reign of Charles III (https://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2023/GG2023S427.pdf), as well as the regular usage by the Governor-in-Council in Victoria

2) The title used in the proclamation of accession has not always matched perfectly with the actual royal style used. To demonstrate here are the styles as seen in each of the proclamations of accession at the Commonwealth level:

1901: ...become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord EDWARD THE SEVENTH, by the Grace of God King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, Supreme Lord in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, to whom we do acknowledge all...

1910: ...become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord, George the Fifth, by- the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, Supreme Lord in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, to whom we do acknowledge all...

1936: ...become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Edward the Eighth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, Supreme Lord in and over the Commonwealth of Australia. To whom We do acknowledge all...

1936:...become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To whom we do acknowledge all...

1952:...become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of this realm and of all her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Supreme Liege Lady in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, to whom her lieges do acknowledge all...

2022:...to be King Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, and, with hearty and humble affection...

All proclamations can be found in the Commonwealth Gazette

Note how, with the exception of the proclamation of George VI, the style used in all proclamations was different to the prescribed title, as was never used again. The preceding "King/Queen" was also used first by Elizabeth II, with "Liege Lady" being moved towards the end of the style, despite this, the preceding "Queen" was never used again, nor was "Queen of this realm". Even the location of "King" in the middle of the title differs from the title actually used by Edward VII and George VI (i.e King of the United Kingdom vs. of the United Kingdom ... King)

3) The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 clearly prescribes the title of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, of which the equivalent for Charles III would be Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. I believe more weight should be given the legally prescribed title, over the single usage in the proclamations of accession, especially given their historical tendency to differ from the title actually used. 2204happy (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. You could have shortened your argument by saying that the formal title was the one under Australian legislation. Also it would have been helpful to provide a link to your change which is provided here. TFD (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this is WP:Original research. The Australian Government's page gives the version with "King" in front of it. This was updated after potential inconsistencies with the proclamation were reported by the Australian (see older version here).

Constitutional professor Anne Twomey also notes here that the title of the monarch was declared via proclamation, not through the 1973 legislation. Also note that Titles legislation doesn't prescribe a title, it merely gives "The Assent of the Parliament ... to the adoption by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation", which was then later published in the gazette (No 152 1973). The Australian also notes the government declined not to pass new legislation for Charles title, noting that they considered the proclamation sufficient.

Where we have two secondary sources supporting the use of the second "King", I think we need another secondary source disputing this before considering making changes. Safes007 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Anne Twomey wrote, "However, the two-page5 1973 Act merely sets out the formal title for the Queen as: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth"." So that was her formal title, based on the opinion of an expert. TFD (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but we are debating Charles' title, not Elizabeth's. It's not clear that the legislation applies to Charles. Safes007 (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

How about we keep it with "King" in front for now, but if we see other states use just "Charles the Third" then it gets changed? Because right now only the Commonwealth and Victoria have had viceregal representatives appointed under Charles III. 2204happy (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Earlier this year I actually emailed Victorian Government House asking about this inconsistency. Their response was

The King’s formal Royal style and title in Australia is:
King Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
This is consistent with the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00044/asmade/text
The Proclamation text used in Victoria is specific to the Proclamation of a new Monarch and is consistent with precedent in the State of Victoria.

Now they didn't actually address the inconsistency and the statement that this is consistent with the titles act was incorrect but hey. I also wonder what title they will use in future.

Also, it's possible that the states could have different titles than the federal one considering that they are possibly different Crowns. Safes007 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO, the one we should be listing is the one that is in actual use, if a Government publication says one thing, but a legal document says another, I think the legal document ought to trump the publication, I view it as simply a matter of fact that whatever style is being actively used, is the style. So far that seems to be exclusively without "King" at the beginning. 2204happy (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that we should preference secondary sources WP:PSTS, not our interpretation of legal documents. Safes007 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

"Formal style" means prescribed by law, not what governments informally use. Why not just describe the controversy? David Flint seems to describe it well. TFD (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What David Flint source are you referring to? Safes007 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The one in the article I linked to, But your cursor over his name in my post and left-click. TFD (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah I couldn't see the link on mobile.

I think Flint is just saying what is in the article currently, that there was probably an error in the proclamation and therefore the title is inconsistent with other realms. This is explained in the footnote, which refers to the Australian article that is also referred to in that interview. Safes007 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what's being argued here? Just go by how it was done for his mother, with gender words (of course) changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

One editor pointed out that the Australian law that set the Queen's title mentions Elizabeth specifically and may not apply to her heirs and successors. Prior to that law, Australia used her title as set by UK law, although no one has argued that it would default back to that. TFD (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that Charles' official title (according to the Government) differs from Elizabeth and the other realms in that an extra "King" is included before "Charles". This was probably due to an error in the proclamation and is discussed in this Australian article. My position is that we should stick to what the government and The Australian say the title is and not do our own legal interpretation of primary sources.

My personal view of what happened is that previously the government agreed that new legislation would be needed when Charles became King to give his title legal force and they intended to use a title consistent with Elizabeth and the other realms (reported in The Australian here). The government later changed their mind and took the position that no legislation was needed, with the proclamation sufficient to give the title legal force. However, they thought they had made his title consistent with Elizabeth and his other realms, so used the consistent version (without the extra "King") for the appointment of the GG and on their website originally (archived version here).

But then later on 15 October 2024 it was pointed out in this Australian article that the proclamation was incorrect and included an extra "King". They declined to pass legislation or get Charles to do a new proclamation while in Australia (reported on 21 October 2024 in the The Australian here). By 2 November, the government had updated their website to include the extra "King" (archive link). This suggests to me that because they consider the proclamation legally binding and they don't want to change it, the government accepts that Charles' title includes the error of the extra "King".

Now, while it's annoying that the government stuffed up, I don't think we can change the title on Wikipedia to what we think it should be even if there is an argument that the proclamation isn't legally binding or that the 1973 legislation trumps it. If that argument was made in a secondary source, we could talk about it, but not based on our own original research. Safes007 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The Australian article you linked to, which I cannot open, is called, "Confusion reigns over king’s legal title". Doesn't it follow policy to report that rather than come down on one side of the argument and ignore the other? TFD (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The confusion was based on the fact that at the time the article was written, the government had the title without "King" on its website. As they have now updated the website, I don't think there is now a live argument over what the title is in secondary sources. Safes007 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's original research to say that what is on the website is the "official title". If there is a debate in reliable secondary sources, that should be reported per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

What debate is there in secondary sources? I only know of The Australian that has covered this issue directly and they are pretty explicit:

The monarch’s title, according to a proclamation issued on September 11, 2022, is: 'King Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.' However, the department’s website and official information and guides for the current royal visit lists the monarch’s title as: 'Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.' There is a refusal by the ­department to acknowledge the inconsistency with the proclamation beginning 'King Charles' while its website begins with 'Charles'.

As the department's website mentioned is now updated, there is no longer any confusion about what the title is. Safes007 (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is OR. You need a rs that comes to the same conclusion. TFD (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above conclusion is about determining what should be included in the article, not about the specific claims in the article itself.

But to just step back, the Government states that the title starts with "King". The only secondary source addresses a confusion that has been addressed. Other than mentioning in a footnote or something that the version without "King" was used on the GG's commission what else is there to add? Safes007 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

What law says that the title is whatever the govenment's website says it is, partiularly when it changes? Why don't the styles and titles acts of the UK or Australia apply? Also, please view the linked video I provided. TFD (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we are getting off track. We don't need to do a legal analysis of the King's title. We just need a reliable source for what the King's title in Australia is. There is no reason to think the website of the PMC, that directly states what the title is, is not a reliable source.

I have watched the video you linked and replied to you about it above earlier. Safes007 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll also note that the two most recent royal warrants using the King's title have use the version beginning with "King" (here and here). Safes007 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Your first link uses the title "Queen Elizabeth" while your second doesn't mention any monarch.

What is your argument that a royal warrant from the UK using the title "Queen Elizabeth" is the official title, while the 1973 Act of the Australian policy saying it is " Elizabeth the Second,...Queen of Australia [etc.]" is not? Isn't it more likely that attaching the title King before the Christian name is an informal convention rather than an official one? TFD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

See the top right of the documents for Charles' title. The warrants were signed in Australia on the advice of the PM during the royal visit and did not involve the UK. Safes007 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Queen of Australia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Constitutional covering clauses

Before there are any more reverts regarding covering clause 2, I will summarise the established practice of constitutional citation in Australia.

On 1 January 1901, six British colonies in Australia were put together as a federation by the British parliament's Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Act has nine sections, of which section 9 is the Constitution. The Constitution itself has 128 sections. These are always referred to as its "sections". To avoid confusion, sections 1-8 of the Act are referred to never as "sections" but always as the Constitution's "covering clauses".

Thus the provision interpreting the expression "the Queen" as it is used in the Constitution—for example, in Constitution sections 1 to 4—is referred to not as "section 2" of the Act but as "covering clause 2" of the Constitution.

The Act itself does not use the names "section" or "covering clause", but discussion has used them as above at least since the Constitution came into operation. They are so used in the official hard copy of the Constitution, published by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Australian Guide to Legal Citation also conforms to this usage.

Wikipedia should follow this solidly established practice. Errantios (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I find this is true discursively, but we are concerned with the footnote citation to an act that is otherwise not discussed significantly in the body of the article. My main issue is that I don't believe and have never seen "Constitution (Cth), covering clause 2 (section 2 of the Act)" as how to format a citation to the covering clauses. The examples I have seen are:

• Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) 63 & 64 Vict, c 12, s 2 (I believe this is the technically correct citation using AGLC4 and therefore for consistency the best way to cite Australian law on Wikipedia. The covering clauses are not technically part of the Constitution proper, so it is necessary to refer the section within the British act as set out in rule 3.6 and in accordance with other British statutes per rule 24.2.)
• Constitution, covering cl 2 (format used in the CLR)
• Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) cl 2 (format I've seen in some law articles, sometimes with (UK) instead of (Imp), or 'clause' instead of 'cl')

I'd be fine with any of these, leaning towards using the full word 'clause' instead of 'cl' as it is less common that the section abbreviation. Safes007 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reading of AGLC4 3.6. And I think "technically" is inappropriate, since the Act is a British statute only historically: it has no effect in Britain and is treated in Australia simply as Australian law, for example in the Federal Register of Legislation. Your second option, therefore, remains—with "clause" spelt out, as WP often does for "section". In the context of this article, however, the history is important and so I had added reference to section 2 of the Act, not as part of the citation but by way of explanation on this occasion. But I've now linked "covering clause" instead. Errantios (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)