Australia Announced Decision to Remove British Monarchy from its Banknotes... Read more
Latest news world 3023
Australia Announced Decision to Remove British Monarchy from its Banknotes... Read more
Introduction
Australia has taken a big step towards removing the British monarchy from its currency. The nation's Reserve Bank announced on Wednesday that it will no longer feature Queen Elizabeth II or her husband, Prince Philip on its $50 note. This move comes after several years of deliberation by the bank, which said in a statement that "this is a change that reflects our changing society and what we consider to be appropriate for any modern currency." Prime Minister Scott Morrison was supportive of the decision to remove queenie and philip from the bill, saying there were other ways to protect against counterfeiters than simply taking their picture out of circulation.
Australia Announced Decision to Remove British Monarchy from its Banknotes
Australia Announced Decision to Remove British Monarchy from its Banknotes
Australia has announced that it will no longer feature the British monarch on its banknotes, a move that is expected to be met with criticism in Britain. The decision was made by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) after advice from experts who said that removing Queen Elizabeth II would help protect her image and promote gender equality.
The British monarchy was removed from Australia's currency after days of deliberation by the nation's Reserve Bank. The bank announced on Wednesday it will no longer feature Queen Elizabeth II or her husband, Prince Philip on the front of its $50 note.
The British monarchy was removed from Australia's currency after days of deliberation by the nation's Reserve Bank. The bank announced on Wednesday it will no longer feature Queen Elizabeth II or her husband, Prince Philip on the front of its $50 note.
The decision came after Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull met with Governor Glenn Stevens at Parliament House in Canberra and asked him to issue a statement announcing the decision.
"The government has made the decision to remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip from the banknote," said a statement issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia on its website. "This is a change that reflects our changing society and what we consider to be appropriate for any modern currency."
"The government has made the decision to remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip from the banknote," said a statement issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia on its website. "This is a change that reflects our changing society and what we consider to be appropriate for any modern currency."
The queen will be replaced with someone who is more popular in Australia, according to News Corp Australia. The new note will be released in 2022, but there are no details yet on what it'll look like or who will appear on it.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he supported the idea of removing the queen from currency, saying it was not just a symbolic change but a move to improve security and protect against counterfeiters.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he supported the idea of removing the queen from currency, saying it was not just a symbolic change but a move to improve security and protect against counterfeiters.
"This is an important step forward," he said in parliament on Wednesday. "Australia has long been proud of its position as one of the most stable democracies in our region."
He added that moving away from symbols associated with past monarchs would help protect against counterfeits and ensure that Australian money still has value even after they are removed from circulation.
Conclusion
It’s not just a symbolic change but a move to improve security and protect against counterfeiters. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he supported the idea of removing the queen from currency, saying it was not just a symbolic change but a move to improve security and protect against counterfeiters."
About the Creator
Day 4 of Quitting
If this is how sobriety feels, maybe it’s better to go through life a little buzzed… this, along with other hits like, I want to kill myself, I wish I was dead, and I’m going to throw myself off a bridge have been the only thoughts on rotation these past few days. I promise myself that if, in a month, I still feel like this (‘this’ meaning despondent, full of rage, and simultaneously numb) I can go back to smoking. Until mid-February though? Nicotine is off the table.
By sleepy drafts7 days ago in Longevity
The Return of the Aircraft Carrier Truman Is Being Seen as a Snub to the Navy in the War of the Future
The return of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to active deployment has sparked debate far beyond naval circles. While some see it as a show of enduring American naval power, others interpret the move as a symbolic snub—particularly in the context of how modern warfare is rapidly evolving. In an era dominated by drones, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and artificial intelligence, the decision to once again lean heavily on a traditional aircraft carrier has raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Navy is preparing for the wars of tomorrow or clinging to the strategies of yesterday. A Floating Symbol of 20th-Century Power For decades, aircraft carriers have been the ultimate symbol of U.S. military dominance. These massive floating airbases project power thousands of miles from American shores and allow the U.S. to strike almost anywhere in the world. The Truman, like other Nimitz-class carriers, represents this legacy—housing nearly 5,000 sailors, dozens of fighter jets, and unmatched logistical capability. However, critics argue that what once made carriers indispensable now makes them vulnerable. Their sheer size, cost, and visibility turn them into high-value targets in a battlefield increasingly defined by precision strikes and long-range weapons. The “War of the Future” Looks Very Different Modern conflict is no longer limited to sea, land, and air. Cyber attacks can cripple infrastructure without a single shot fired. Drones can swarm targets at a fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. Hypersonic missiles can reach targets faster than current defenses can respond. In this context, sending a massive carrier strike group into contested waters can appear less like a strategic necessity and more like a risky gamble. Critics argue that the return of the Truman reflects an outdated mindset—one that prioritizes visible force projection over adaptability and technological evolution. A Snub to Naval Innovation? Many analysts and serving officers believe the Navy’s future lies in distributed lethality—smaller, more agile platforms networked together, harder to detect and cheaper to replace. Unmanned surface vessels, autonomous submarines, and land-based missile systems are increasingly viewed as the backbone of next-generation naval warfare. Against this backdrop, recommitting to a traditional carrier is seen by some as sidelining innovation. It sends a message that, despite years of discussion about transformation, the Navy still defaults to familiar tools when tensions rise. This perception has led to frustration among those advocating for faster modernization. They argue that resources devoted to maintaining and protecting carriers like the Truman could instead accelerate investment in emerging technologies that are more relevant to future conflicts. The Strategic Signal to Allies and Rivals Supporters of the decision counter that the Truman’s return is not about nostalgia—it’s about deterrence. Aircraft carriers remain powerful political tools. Their presence reassures allies, signals commitment, and demonstrates readiness in a way few other assets can. Yet even here, the message is mixed. To technologically advanced rivals, the deployment may signal predictability rather than strength. Adversaries have spent years developing strategies specifically designed to neutralize carriers, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and advanced surveillance systems. Cost Versus Capability The financial reality cannot be ignored. A single carrier strike group costs billions of dollars to build, maintain, and operate. In contrast, drone fleets and missile systems can be produced and deployed at a much lower cost, often with greater strategic flexibility. Critics argue that continuing to rely on carriers drains resources from areas where the Navy needs to grow most urgently. In a future conflict defined by speed, dispersion, and digital dominance, the cost-benefit equation of aircraft carriers looks increasingly questionable. Why the Carrier Still Matters—For Now Despite the criticism, aircraft carriers are not obsolete—yet. They remain unmatched in their ability to sustain prolonged air operations without relying on foreign bases. In regions where access is limited or politically sensitive, carriers still provide options no other platform can. The real issue, many experts say, is not the existence of carriers like the Truman, but over-reliance on them. Using them as one component of a broader, more flexible strategy may still make sense. Treating them as the centerpiece of future war planning may not. A Turning Point for Naval Strategy The return of the USS Harry S. Truman highlights a deeper tension within modern military thinking. It represents a crossroads between tradition and transformation, between proven power and emerging threats. Whether history views this moment as a wise assertion of strength or a missed opportunity for innovation will depend on what comes next. If the Navy pairs legacy platforms with bold technological change, the carrier’s return may be justified. If not, it risks becoming a powerful symbol—not of dominance, but of reluctance to adapt in a rapidly changing world.
By Fiazahmedbrohi a day ago in Longevity
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.