Posted on 01/24/2013 4:16:33 AM PST by naturalman1975
Edited on 01/24/2013 6:22:49 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A HIGH-powered alliance of top Australians has unveiled a new national sporting flag and plans to use it to gatecrash major sporting events.
Ausflag will push for sporting bodies and fans to embrace the green, gold, blue and white flag - still featuring the Southern Cross - and even want it to be raised as the official flag in Olympic Games medal ceremonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Exactly. They are members of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Any explanation why there are 4 big stars and one little one on this flag?
The layout of the Australian Flag, explained.
The five stars at the fly end are the Southern Cross (constellation), which is not visible from the Northern Hemisphere.
It's very recognizable in the Australian sky, much the same way as Orion and Ursa Major are here. Or, at least, I found it so.
You see that poem? - Canada fought both world wars under the ensign. Applies just as much to Canada as it does to Australia.
‘Former’?
Thanks. I thought it was just some “design element.”
Because there is also no star (at least no visible star) at the celestial south pole, the Southern Cross is important to using the stars for traditional navigation in the Southern Hemisphere - it's long axis points almost directly at the south celestial pole. That makes it extremely symbolic in terms of showing something is in the southern half of the world.
The large star (directly under the Union Jack) is not part of a constellation - it's the Commonwealth Star. It has seven points - one for every one of the six states, and one that represents the territories combined. In that way, it serves a somewhat similar symbolic purpose to the fifty stars on the flag of the United States - if Australia ever gets another state, a point would be added to the star (the Northern Territory may one day become a state, and there is also provision in the Australian constitution for New Zealand to become a state - at the time the constitution was written, it was not clear which of the Australasian colonies would want to become part of Australia and so it was written so all could: "The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
The Canadian situation is a bit different from the Australian though. The red ensign you've displayed was never actually an official Canadian flag. It was a commonly used one but it did not have the status of a National Flag in law (it had status as a Naval Ensign by order of the Admiralty, and the Canadian government encouraged its use in cases where a distinction between Britain and Canada was needed). Until 1965, the only official flag of Canada remained the Union Flag of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While Canadians did fight under the Red Ensign during both World Wars, and in Korea and other smaller conflicts, it was not a National Flag.
In Australia, our current flag was accepted as official in 1903, only two years after Australia became a separate nation. We fought wars under it from 1901 onwards.
There's certainly no reason Canada should not have made the change it did - as a sovereign nation that is its right, and it may well have been the right change for Canada. But I do not think a similar change is warranted here.
“While Canadians did fight under the Red Ensign during both World Wars, and in Korea and other smaller conflicts, it was not a National Flag.”
It was the national flag. It was flown at Rideau Hall, etc. The situation and the debate in the 60’s is exactly the same, for the exact same reasons between the exact same camps.
Sure, they had the right to change the flag - but should they have changed it? Absolutely not. Neither should Australia. What is Australia without her heritage?
No, it was not. It was never gazetted as such, nor proclaimed as such by the Monarch (or the Governor General in the name of the Monarch).
Australia's flag was proclaimed as a National Flag by King Edward VII on 11th February 1903, and Gazetted as such on 20th February 1903, after about one and a half years of unofficial use. Neither of these steps ever took place for the Canadian Red Ensign. It was used on the basis of Orders in Council by the Canadian government but those orders did not create a national flag, merely something to be used as an alternative when confusion would be caused by use of the Union Flag alone.
The Maple Leaf Flag was proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth II on January 28, 1965 and gazetted as such on February 15, 1965, the first time these things had been done for any Canadian flag, and that's what made it an official National Flag.
I'm a retired protocol officer of the Royal Australian Navy. These distinctions were my bread and butter. They don't matter to most people in most cases, but they are important in some situations.
Put in another way - you could argue that the Canadian Red Ensign was a de facto National Flag from around 1892 onwards, but you could never argue that it was a de jure National Flag. In the case of Australia's flag, it gained de facto status as such on 3rd September 1901 when it was flown over the first Parliament of Australia - but it also gained de jure status on 20th February 1903.
The Southern Cross is most certainly visible from the northern hemisphere, although in it’s entirety only from about 25 degrees north and southward (Hawaii, for example). Orion is visible at some point during the year globally, while Ursa Major is only viewable in the northern part of the southern hemisphere during a portion of the year.
Very interesting. Thank you for the information!
The Hawaii State Flag still does.
“Put in another way - you could argue that the Canadian Red Ensign was a de facto National Flag from around 1892 onwards, but you could never argue that it was a de jure National Flag.”
It’s a core part of Canadian heritage. Same with the Australian flag.
That may be so. I'm not a Canadian, though, so I don't presume to tell Canadians what they should think on this issue.
If Australia hadn't got around to designing a national flag until the 1960s, I think ours would be different than it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.