Template talk:Infobox vice-regal

Crest/shield images

What is the logic behind the current set up of the template? As far as I know, Canada is the only Commonwealth realm where the Governor(-)General has a distinctive crest. It makes sense to display the emblems featured on the flags of Lt Governors of Canadian provinces, which include the shield of the provincial arms, but the emblems are not simply the shield. Even if "shield" is a fair description in this case, it shouldn't be applied in other situations, such as Australian states. The emblem displayed at Governors of New South Wales doesn't even include the shield from the arms, but is a crown over the state badge. I am not even aware that this emblem is used apart from in the flag - perhaps using the flag would be better, but in any case, the infobox should not insist on a "shield" just because the Canadian emblems include them. JPD (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Governor-General of Canada does not have a crest, as there is no coat of arms for the office of Governor-General. The Governor-General uses on her flag part of the crest of the Royal Arms of Canada. At most it is a badge of the Governor-General, not a crest. This should be relabelled. Andrew Yong (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Style

I have removed "The Right Honourable" from the Australian style, in line with comments left at Talk:Governor-General of Australia. While I can see the attraction of automatically generating the style based on the status of the realm/state/etc., the fact that we have to go to the level of country by country cases does sort of defeat the point of a template. Why not leave the style field to be filled in by the editors of each article? JPD (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada

I've made a few botched attempts at getting the hyphen in Governor-General to disappear on the Canadian Governor General page, but without any luck at all. Can someone with better knowledge of html code than I possibly make the template display correctly on that article (as the title Governor General is not hyphenated in Canada). Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Former Viceroy

Would it be possible to create an infobox FORMER vice-regal?I could have used it for the Viceroy of Norway article, but as this template is today I couldn't. One would think that most Viceroys were in the past anyway. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 12:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Queen of Australia

Looking at Governor-General of Australia, I see in the infobox template the following text Appointed by: Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia. Looking at the Australian Constitution, we find, as per covering clause 2 and paragraph 1 of the Preamble that:

• 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.[1]
• WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwe'alth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland...[2]

In s2, we see A Governor‑General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.[3]

This wording has not changed since Federation, nor has it been superseded by any subsequent legislation - it is the Constitution, it may only be amended, not repealed or over-ridden - nor has the High Court or the Privy Council ruled that the meaning of these words has specifically changed.

Given these facts, I ask how is it that we can say that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen as Queen of Australia?

Imagine the following hypothetical. Quentin Bryce visits the Queen, and their shared taxi is run into by a double-decker bus, killing all inside. Prince Charles automatically succeeds his mother, presumably as King Charles III of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, as the Australian Royal Style and Title Acts of 1953 and 1973 do no more than assign the title of "Queen of Australia etc." to Elizabeth II, he is not King Charles III of Australia, and will not be so styled until a new Australian Royal Style and Title Bill is passed and presented to him for signature. This process will take some time, and possibly not until after the coronation, which typically takes many months to organise. In the meantime, Australia needs a new Governor-General. This is not a difficulty, as the British monarch is specifically given the power to appoint Australian Governors-General. We could not, however, say in our template that he or she was appointed by King Charles III as King of Australia, because that title would not exist.

Nor would it be correct even if it did exist, because the power to appoint Australian Governors-General is not given to Australian monarchs, but rather to the British monarch (who nowadays acts on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister).

The constitutional situation may be different in other Commonwealth realms. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"how is it that we can say that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen as Queen of Australia?" Because the appointment is made by the Queen solely in her Australian Council. Otherwise, you're attempting to argue that the United Kingdom is subject to Australian sovereignty. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And your WP:SYNTHESIS-avoiding reliable source saying "Queen of Australia" is...? --Pete (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[4], [5]. There are more, but those suffice to meet your request. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, not quite what I was looking for, because they don't address the constitutional difficulties raised above. The Queen's full title includes "her other Realms", which of course includes the United Kingdom. If she identifies herself as "Queen of Australia", or others describe her as such, the long form is implicit. What I'm looking for is some instrument or ruling that alters the powers given in the Australian constitution to the Queen in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to that of some other sovereignty. Similar situations may exist in Canada, New Zealand and so on. A Privy Court ruling, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a reliable source. I provided two. What you're looking for is the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act 1986, as well as various letters patent, all of which are part of the Australian constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those. I was hoping you could provide something which operates without WP:SYNTHESIS. A direct statement addressing the points I raised above. Do you know of anything along those lines? --Pete (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any source that supports your synthesis, no. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No synthesis. Just a direct quote from the Constitution. If you know of anything that alters that, please let me know with a direct quote from a reliable source. High Court or Privy Council judgements alone have the power to alter the meaning of the Australian constitution, and only the people voting in a referendum can change the wording through legislation, as per s128. Looking at the Australia Act 1986, would you please be so good as to state which section you considered to be applicable? As for the Statute of Westminster, likewise, please. I specifically draw your attention to s8: Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act. The definition of "The Queen" in the Constitution therefore remains unchanged, unaltered, unrepealed.[6] --Pete (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Basing the assertion that Australia is not a sovereign nation on a clause of the Australian constitution taken far out of context is the definition of WP:SYN. It is you who needs to find a reliable source that backs up your theory. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Australia is a sovereign nation. There is no dispute there. Are you honestly unable to find anything that addresses the points I raised? It's okay if you can't, I was pretty sure there was nothing available, but I do respect your interest in the subject. --Pete (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you certainly seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of sovereignty and the divisibility of the Crown. Perhaps the Australian High Court case Sue v Hill might aid you? In particular, paragraph 78: "Whilst the text of the Constitution has not changed, its operation has. This reflects the changed identity of those upon whose advice the sovereign accepts that he or she is bound to act in Australian matters by reason, among other things, of the attitude taken since 1926 by the sovereign's advisers in the United Kingdom. The Constitution speaks to the present and its interpretation takes account of and moves with these developments. Hence the statement by Gibbs J in Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia, with reference to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), that: '[i]t is right to say that this alteration in Her Majesty's style and titles was a formal recognition of the changes that had occurred in the constitutional relations between the United Kingdom and Australia'."

Regardless, you need a reliable source in place of your opinion. Two have already been provided to back the fact the Queen of Australia appoints the Governor-General of Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have provided are like Texan lawyers arguing that freedom of speech does not exist in the USA. To prove them wrong, all one needs to do is quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In this case, I quote the Australian Constitution. I attended the High Court during Sue v Hill and read the judgement with keen interest. It was certainly a historic judgement, but made no reference to the Queen's role in appointing Australian Governors-General and the other powers given under the Constitution. The key point in para 78 is that the monarch is now advised by the Australian government, not the British. The Australian Prime Minister James Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General, and he did so, despite his personal inclination. However, the King made this appointment as King of Great Britain. This arrangement has continued to the present day. My reliable source is the text of the constitution, and while I thank you in your best efforts to find a judicial decision otherwise, so far these efforts have not borne any useful fruit. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Colours

The colours in the header of this template, purple on purple, are highly inaccessible, being low-contrast, and fail the guidelines described at WP:COLOUR at even the most basic level. I removed them, but have been reverted. We should make our articles as accessible as practically possible; there is no need to keep this style. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of having this discussion in two places, I suggest this all continue at Template talk:Infobox ministerial office#Colours. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)