From 1066 on, England's monarchs have inherited the caste structure instituted by the Thief of Normandy. Full marks to Malcolm Turnbull for humiliating them over the Spycatcher case and leading the opening push to get them out of our Constitution. Having said that, isn't it a little ironical for the site of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, of all places, to be named Parkes Place - not that Parkes bears any responsibility for the invasion that preceded his birth? A name symbolising the first inhabitants might be more appropriate for that part of the street.

What is so surprising about two States being named after British Royals? Five US States are still named after them, and that is after 232 years of independence. (They are Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and New York).

All this niggling by the republican remnant is futile until they address the central bastion of Royalty, the fact that under Section 64 of the Federal Constitution, The Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative. The status of politicians in Australia is currently so low that even the Age, (hardly a right wing publication) describes it as "subterranean". Until the political elite recapture the respect of the people the monarchy can be assured of a permanent place in the Australian political establishment.

I agree with the idea that they should not change the name of Parkes to Queen Elizabeth.

The strange thing about this reverence for the Royal Family is that they are the direct descendants of conquerors and warlords who proclaimed themselves Kings of England. This sits in direct contrast to the British and American's being hell bent on taking today’s Warlords to the International War crimes courts, whilst in their very midst they reviere the royal family who still lives off the spoils of treasures and lands taken by their past relatives who murdered and plundered the English country side. People have short memories and because of this are confused in their Logic.

Why today, are the Royal Family treated like the cream of society whilst the warlords of today are treated like savage criminals? There is no consistency in this type of thinking. When you shake the Queen's hand and fawn all over her you are justifying her warlord lineage.

So saying, I do not dislike Queen, I just shake my head at the
the public adoration of her which seems illogical. Who says
nobody gains anything from war? The royal lineage have literally
lived like Kings and Queens ever since.

Some years ago I read (quite possibly in the Parkes, NSW, Champion Post newspaper) a characterisation of Canberra by a regional-dwelling Australian as 'the place where they build bridges over artificial lakes'. The article author had called this encapsulation of the ethos of the place to mind with this reference to the National Capital Authority in his sixth paragraph:

"In response to the [article author's] petition, the
National Capital Authority was quick to point out that,
‘only the stretch of Parkes Place skirting Lake Burley
Griffin would be renamed Queen Elizabeth Terrace’. The
open space where the Aboriginal Tent Embassy sits will
still be called Parkes Place. This misses the point
entirely."

Reading through to the end of the article, and having mentally noted along the way that Queen Elizabeth has reigned as our sovereign for more than half of the 111 years the Federation has existed, I came to the author's terminal highlighted text link. Would just clicking it mean I would have signed the petition, which I wasn't yet sure, not being a Canberra native, that I wanted to do?

I clicked the link. About two thirds of the way down the author's petition page is a link to a Canberra Times news item. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/parkes-place-renaming-sparks-a-royal-row-20121024-2853v.html That link contains a map showing in blue (in the Canberra suburb of Parkes, by the way) that portion of the present Parkes Place that will be renamed Queen Elizabeth Terrace. The text immediately below the map explains the change. Henry Parkes gets three memorials out of this: the new Parkes Place East (a street), the new Parkes Place West ( a street), and Parkes Place (a place with no street, but with grass and the Aboriginal tent embassy, between the other two memorials, that perhaps should be called 'Parkes Place Centre'), a nett gain of two.

From the NCA information below the map it appears as if Ben Jones has misplaced the latter of his quotation marks in failing to include the words 'The open space where the Aboriginal Tent Embassy sits will still be called Parkes Place'.

TBC

Continued.

Speaking of missed points, a point that could well be missed is that the map showing that part of the present Parkes Place subject to the renaming also shows an adjacent area named on it as 'Reconciliation Place'. That same map shows no open space area named 'Parkes Place', even though the explanatory text accompanying the map says:

"The road in the Parliamentary Triangle has three sides
with the internal open space also called Parkes Place,
the location of the Aboriginal tent embassy."

Why does the name for that part of the open space WITHIN THE PARLIAMENTARY TRIANGLE not appear on the map? Is it because it is not officially proclaimed as 'Parkes Place'? Given that this open space supposedly named 'Parkes Place' is also described as the location of the Aboriginal tent embassy, and that open space is shown as being named 'Reconciliation Place' outside the Parliamentary Triangle, is the renaming of a section of roadway beside the lake a smokescreen for other renaming(s) designed to make a future moving of the Aboriginal tent embassy appear more 'consistent'? Or is the NCA trying to underhandedly rob what has long perhaps been thought to be an existing open space memorial to Henry Parkes, while placing the blame for it as a consequence of 'unforeseen confusion' accompanying a Diamond Jubilee celebratory renaming of the lakeside section of road in honour of the Queen?

Ever being one to look for the bigger picture, and having noted that the Canberra Times map was a Google 'Whereis' product, I called up the suburb of Parkes, ACT, and zoomed out. Over on the other side of the lake from the soon-to-be-named Queen Elizabeth Terrace I saw the ever-so-much-more-grand Parkes Way! http://www.whereis.com/act/canberra/parkes-wy#session=MTM= . Given that a description of 'Parkes Place beside Lake Burley Griffin' could easily invite confusion in a visitor's mind with 'Parkes Way beside Lake Burley Griffin' on the other side, perhaps the NCA is to be commended for obviating a potential source of confusion by renaming the smaller and less grand one Queen Elizabeth Terrace.

Whatever the response to the author's petition, Ben Jones may have done the cause of memorialisation of Sir Henry Parkes a service. His article may have highlighted a bit of a conundrum with respect to that part of the renaming that will result in the creation of the street name 'Parkes Place East'.

If one looks at a zoomed-in view of the Google Whereis map, as here: http://twitpic.com/bapofq , one will see in relation to the about-to-become-Parkes Place East a resemblance to a two-pronged fork, with each of the prongs bearing the current name of 'Parkes Place' on the map. 'Parkes Place East West Fork' and 'Parkes Place East East Fork' (or '...Prong', in either case) start to get a little unwieldy as possible distinguishing names, don't they? A possible 'Parkes Place Off-Central', for the prong skirting the High Court of Australia as it does, hardly seems to cut the mustard either. Problem.

How about that western prong gets named 'Henry Parkes Court'? It would substantially make up in length for the section of roadway that is to become 'Queen Elizabeth Terrace', whilst creating a necessary distinction from the new 'Parkes Place East'. It would give old Henry a nett gain of three memorialisations as a side effect of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, which seems a fair deal in which there are no losers. It would seem mean-minded not to give the Queen a terrace in the Parliamentary Triangle when she has been on the throne longer than the rest of her antecedents put together over the Federation.

That leaves a little crescent of roadway off the suggested 'Henry Parkes Court' appearing to be without a name. Since it is near to Reconciliation Place, why not name it in memory of a Wiradjuri* poet, Kevin Gilbert, who, as I understand it, had somewhat to do with the establishment of the Aboriginal tent embassy? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3130#73881

*Wiradjuri: an aboriginal tribal name based upon a linguistic distinction meaning, as I understand it, "having the word 'djuri' for 'no'". Juxtaposes with the High Court having no jury.

It would have to be agreed that the Australian Federation that was Sir Henry Parkes' lifetime goal is more than symbolised, it is epitomised, in the Constitution that was adopted. No international visitor, were they but to read the opening paragraph of that Constitution's preamble, would have the slightest excuse for thinking this country still to be colonially beholden to any outside prescription as to its status. Its words:

"Whereas the people ... have agreed to unite
... under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and under the
Constitution hereby established:"

The possibly tongue-in-cheek ambiguity implicit within the earlier suggestion of in turn renaming that part of the intended 'Parkes Place East' that skirts the High Court of Australia as 'Henry Parkes Court' is excusable inasmuch as, in a way, that Court could be seen as Henry's own creation. It could symbolise the way, left to themselves by the purveyors of political 'correction', Australians tend to, not entirely irreverently, name things.

The other side of the symbolic coin constituted by the status of the Australian polity in that freely adopted position under the Crown is the power of veto given it under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 over any proposed UK legislation of a type specified in that statute's first two paragraphs. To wit:

"Whereas .....:

And Whereas ... any alteration in the law
[of the UK] touching the Succession to the
Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall
hereafter require the assent as well of the
Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom:"

In its own symbolic way, the renaming of that section of the present Parkes Place as 'Queen Elizabeth Terrace' is not only consistent with the streetscape planning protocols of the national capital, but serves to underscore the legislative and political status of the Australian Commonwealth as one that long ago progressed from colonial dependency to that of joint custodian of British heritage.

That power is Parkes' legacy, too. Highlight it!

Meanwhile, look at what has been happening in Parkes, NSW: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/07/04/3538590.htm

Its probably a little late in the day to bring up another little streetscape naming issue that has seemingly escaped notice, but better late than never.

If one looks at this part of the map of the suburb of Parkes, ACT, http://twitpic.com/bbj538 , it will be seen that on the western side of the National Rose Garden the roadway is presently named 'Parkes Place', to become under tomorrow's renaming proposal part of 'Parkes Place West'.

The roadway at the eastern end of the National Rose Garden is un-named on the map, but, by less than fully clear inference because of its displacement along King Edward Terrace, is presumably also presently part of Parkes Place, the road. This section of roadway to become, under tomorrow's renaming intention, part of Parkes Place East. That little bit of displacement along King Edward Terrace could provide the opportunity to yet more fully memorialise Sir Henry Parkes, for there needs to be found a way around the seeming necessity of having to otherwise identify this section of roadway as 'Parkes Place East South', once tomorrow's renaming goes into effect. See this part of the map for clarification: http://twitpic.com/bbj4jt

Whilst in crafting the Federation proposals that effectively married all the States as one, Henry Parkes never promised us a rose garden, we nevertheless got one, and its existence may just provide a way out of this apparent nomenclatural and memorialization bind. This seemingly orphan section of roadway could be named 'Parkes Garden Place', avoiding any chance of confusion with the intended 'Parkes Place East', the suggested 'Henry Parkes Court', or indeed that part of King Edward Terrace that provides the displacement that creates a basis for confusion in the first place. That would give old Henry Parkes a net gain of four memorializations over that of the somewhat amorphous 'Parkes Place' (the vicinity) with which we all started.

Whatever the outcome of Ben Jones' petition, I am confident the NCA will be grateful for his outrage in helping reveal the extent to which its proposal has been thought through. I'm Parkest right out now.

It seems just a trifle incongruous that the monarch having had the shortest reign of those reigning since Federation, Edward VII, should be memorialized with the longest terrace in the Parliamentary Triangle, whilst at the same time HM Queen Elizabeth II, the longest-reigning, is being memorialized with the shortest. Maybe thats just the way things are likely to turn out in Canberra, but I wonder.

I mention it only because one way out of the otherwise seeming necessity of having to identify, as things today stand, a part of the newly-created Parkes Place East as 'Parkes Place East South' (or some such other ambiguous name as 'Parkes Garden Place', with or without an apostrophe), would be to excise that small section of King Edward Terrace that creates the displacement between the two distinguishable parts of the new Parkes Place East and formally make it part thereof*. Parkes Place East, that is.

That would leave the NCA with the necessity of having a 'King Edward Terrace East' and a 'King Edward Terrace West' as a consequence of such a fix.

If, as we are from time to time exhorted, we keep looking on the bright side of life, this apparent no-nett-nomenclatural-gain solution could instead be modified to provide a template for Parliamentary Triangle monarchical memorializations into the future. The short section of the present King Edward Terrace to the east of the easternmost intersection with Parkes Place East could remain as, simply, King Edward Terrace, a memorialization perhaps more proportional to the length of his reign. The longer section of the present King Edward Terrace to the west of the westernmost intersection with the new Parkes Place East could be held in nomenclatural reserve for future monarchical memorialization(s). It could renamed in the interim as King Edward's Terrace to distinguish it from the permanent memorialization to the east, with but the addition of an apostrophe and an 's'.

So there you go, NCA. Named and shamed!

`

*Sentence lengths are in memorialization of PM John Gorton, whose memorial building now sits in Parkes Place East.

I trust supporters for 'Queen Elizabeth Terrace' don't rub salt into the wounded pride of its opponents by erecting 'No Parking' signs.

Having succumbed to the seductions of cross-promotion in tweeting a link to a post in this comments thread to the Canberra Times on Twitter, with the effect of that tweet as of this morning having moved up to feature in the very top of its @mentions 'top tweets', http://twitpic.com/bcfmdx , I feel obliged to contribute a little more to this (regrettably) increasingly monological discussion.

It would be nice to be able to pass over my reference to Edward VII in my post of Saturday, 10 November 2012 at 8:28:57 AM, as a typo in which I really meant to refer to Edward VIII as having had the shortest reign (20 January to 11 December 1936) during the life of the Federation, but the truth is that I had momentarily forgotten that reign. All of which requires amendment to suggestions toward resolution of such nomenclatural mayhem as exists in the Parliamentary Triangle in the vicinity of Parkes' various Places.

An alternative to the excision of a small portion of the present King Edward Terrace for purposes of creation of continuity between the offset, and therefore discontinuous, parts of the new (since Saturday) Parkes Place East, could be to construct an over(or under)pass that would connect the two (or three) sections of Parkes Place East roadway. If it was to be an overpass it could, for example, be named 'Faulconbridge Bridge' in memorialization of Clarinda Parkes (nee Faulconbridge), Sir Henry's wife.

The present King Edward Terrace would thus remain continuous, as it indeed is, and could be made to serve double memorialization duty with but the addition of an 's' to 'King', making it the Kings Edward Terrace, given that there have been during the life of the Federation two kings Edward. A like amendment to King George Terrace could memorialize the two kings George. An absolutely capital resolution of nomenclatural difficulties in tune with the ethos of the place. Canberra, that is.

Moving forward, more terraces could be constructed as required for future memorializations, unless some other structure comes into vogue to take their place.

So you don't think, Forrest, that my minor aside wasn't merely an attempt to be part of a latebreaking 'top tweet' I too "feel obliged to contribute a little more…"

I like all your nomenclature options as presented. Especially as they offer opportunities for action at two further stages.

"Moving forward" (as you say), when the next Republican debate/argument flares up in Canberra the Queen Elizabeth, Kings Edward and Kings George roadways should all be renamed – replacing the descriptor Terrace with Row.

Further, upon the achievement of independent republic status, Row can be changed to Close.

Its not my place to sit in judgement upon what may be the motivations of others contributing to this comments thread. I can only observe, as in the case of poster Wm Trevor, that if one aspires to attainment of a place amongst the top of the top tweets in any @mentions timeline, one first has to be on Twitter, and then has to park a tweet in an appropriate place where it may attract 'attention'.

I have no idea what it is that makes a tweet 'top' in the first place, nor what makes it, having attained 'top tweet' status, then move forward in the order in which tweets in a timeline are, (dare I say it?), 'placed'. I can only think that it must have something to do with the recording of viewers clicks on links emplaced therein, as compared to other tweets in the same timeline, and/or the award of 'retweets' and 'favourites' by other users.

Without sitting in judgement upon Wm Trevor's willingness to change place names, or descriptors, memorializing events or epochs in Australia's history, I do wonder as to his concern as to the extent that such memorializations, as symbols, matter.

Assuming 'row' to be an adequate substitute (replacement?) for 'terrace', I wonder as to in accord with what protocols it would be decided which ends would be blocked of the respective rows that were formerly terraces, to make them into 'closes' at the onset of the prognosticated republican end-time? Having effected these closures, how would traffic move from Parkes Place East to Parkes Place West across Parkes Place? Or is that the symbolism, one of everything being brought to a halt in the place?

In the real world, at Parkes, NSW, they have named the road leading into the proposed Parkes International Airport in memorialization of a migrant from Poland, who in 1949 was one of the first occupants of that site when used as a migrant hostel, worked therein as a driver, and was last out when the hostel closed in 1952, as Muzyczuk Drive.

In place already!