comment: >
  
  Gotta be Bluey
context: It should be Bandit Heeler >
  
  Somewhere on the internet is a 5 dollar buck note drawn in Bluey style with a King Charles Spaniel on it for the king. >
  
  There is now... 5 Dollar Bucks >
  
  lol he looks so sad >
  
  His mum died. >
  
  oh yeah that’s right >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  King Charles will not feature on Australia's $5 banknote following a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia, prompting outrage from the Opposition.
  The portrait of Queen Elizabeth II first appeared on the $5 polymer note in July 1992 when the Queen celebrated the 40th anniversary of her accession.
  "This new design will replace the portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II."The other side of the $5 banknote will continue to feature the Australian Parliament.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: banknote^#1 decision^#2 note^#3 Queen^#4 Australia^#5 >
  
  Good bota >
  
  
  There is no question about this, that it's directed by the government," he told Sydney radio station 2GB. 
  
  Maybe you folks do things differently down in Australia, but who the hell else would decide what gets printed on money? >
  
  The Reserve Bank of Australia is independent of the government. They're the ones who decide on the notes. They'll consult the government, but the decision lies with them
  Basically, there's going to be an indigenous person on the note rather than an irrelevant monarch from the other side of the world and a whole lot of racists are going to be bent out of shape
  Ironically, the Liberal party in Australia are conservatives. Not a patch on the fucked-up shitty mess like in 'Murica, but still a bunch of bigots stuck in the dark ages >
  
  Like it or not, that 'irrelevant monarch' is still our head of state. >
  
  In name only. >
  
  That's still an important distinction. Everything with "royal" in its name would have to change in a republic. >
  
  Oh no!
  So? >
  
  There's a thing called registered business names. Sure they can change it, but it's more work than "in name only" implies. >
  
  Fill out a form, get a new logo, change the name on the building, print new business cards, get a new URL and change the email footers.  How can a country manage something that any individual setting up a business has to do, it's impossible! >
  
  So you're agreeing it's not "in name only". >
  
  It is in name only, just that there are multiple steps that have to be taken to implement the name change, which at the scale of national institutions is a minor inconvenience that can be handled without issue, not some big hurdle that you're making it out to be. >
  
  I say we put my Mum on it. She's nice. >
  
  Yeah I think it would be cool to have a mumma cassowarry on the $5 note >
  
  a kangaroo would be better >
  
  Already on the dollar coin. >
  
  Bargearse for mine. >
  
  Souvlaki? >
  
  Put Steven Bradbury on it. >
  
  I mean, smart move since he won't be around long anyways... >
  
  If he lives to be a hundred, he could reign for 25 years. Even the youngest people on Reddit will be in their thirties by then. >
  
  His parents lived to 96 and 99 too so this is not really that unlikely. >
  
  The family is rather well cared for. >
  
  Look how old the other European royals live, not all live to nineties. >
  
  Put the Uluru Rock on it ! >
  
  Need to be Bon Scott from AC/DC on it… >
  
  Yeah putting a Scottish bloke on an Australian currency will go down well I imagine >
  
  I thought they had Dame Edna on their notes. >
  
  Symbolic but interesting choice. Australians - you guys thinking of going full on republic in the next 20 years? >
  
  Nope. Ignore the reddit hivemind whinging about 'colonisers' or 'relics of the past'. Most Australians are indifferent and prefer no change to status quo, even if we think the royals are flogs. >
  
  According to consistent polling over the last 20 years approximately 50% of Australians want to be a republic vs 30% monarchists and 20% not knowing/caring. It's definitely not just a Reddit SJW thing. Interestingly monarchism has flipped and got in the lead since just before the queen died. >
  
  One of the reasons the last referendum didn't pass was the kind of system proposed. Politicians would have chosen the president rather than by a public vote. You can want a republic but vote against kinds of republics you don't like. >
  
  President by popular election is a fucking terrible idea and I’ll never support it. The last thing we need is ANOTHER level of politics and PM vs President bullshittery. 
  Give the GG a new title if we must be a republic. The system works. Don’t fuck it up. >
  
  I'm sure there's something in the fine details, but it does sound like the easiest option. >
  
  Olivia Newton John? >
  
  Ned Kelly. >
  
  Chopper Read >
  
  Hopefully they’ll continue with the whale blowjob theme!
  Beastiality is illegal for everyone but the treasury! >
  
  Put the Drop Bear on it >
  
  At least it’s not Gina Rinehart who has her hands if not her face on the most Australian money. >
  
  *Five Dollarydoos >
  
  If there's someone from recent history who truly deserves his face to be printed on Australian Money, it's the late Stephen Robert (Steve) Irwin. >
  
  Should also rename it to Dollarydoo while at it. >
  
  Should be a 1974 Ford Falcon XB GT. >
  
  Yeah nah, a HO is far more iconic >
  
  Honestly I think a Koala Bear in a suit is the winning combination >
  
  It should be Sassy the Sasquatch >
  
  You fuckin druggo >
  
  I’ve never understood what benefit countries like Australia and Canada get from being in the commonwealth? What’s the point? >
  
  I don't get why people have such massive respect for Elizabeth but way less for her son.  She only gets this respect because she has been queen for a long time, she was never particularly more moral than Charles.  Nor do I get why people would want to abolish the monarchy only after her death, those people are stupid.
  If you think the monarchy is stupid, the difference between the two are irrelevant.  I'm not British, but if I were I would be consistent on this issue, no monarchy unless I am the monarch. >
  
  The should put DickButt on there. >
  
  And call them dollarydoos. >
  
  The Emus did win a war... >
  
  Good. I mean why the hell should the currency in any country feature the face of a rich kid who inherited his so called "title" through birth.  
  I hope Canada follows suit. I want to see a Loon or Terry Fox  on money instead of Charles. >
  
  They should put a pre-colonisaton depiction of Black Mountain and Mt Ainslie from where Parliament House sits now.
  The two mountains that are make the breasts of the namesake of Canberra, and an important meeting place for the Ngunnawal/Ngambri peoples. 
  Or something else of First Nations significance. >
  
  About fuckin time, cunts >
  
  I vote for a Ned Kelly fiver >
  
  Let’s hope Canada follows suit! >
  
  They should just put Wayne Gretzky on all your money >
  
  Mad Max!!! >
  
  Crocodile Dundee 🐊 >
  
  Are Australians  still subjects of  the british "royal" family?  Why? The brits at least get all those tourists dollars >
  
  No, but Austrians are sadly still subjects of autocorrect. >
  
  lol . why did the $5 note have the queen on it? >
  
  Because like Canada, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. We didn't fight a multi-year bloody war of independence like America did. 
  We just asked for independence nicely, and one of the stipulations for gaining freedom is the instituting of a constitutional monarchy. Which means while we run our nations completely independently, the British Monarch is still the head of state, even if they have no actual power inside the countries.
  It's why the Queen was on so much currency outside of the UK despite having no power. >
  
  Didn't the previous monarch dissolve your government once in 1975? Pretty bold for someone with no actual power. >
  
  Not actually Australian, actually, but I've heard about that. The Monarch didn't do anything, really. A constitutional monarchy means Governor Generals are "appointed" by the Monarch, although they're actually proposed representatives by the country's own government. The Monarch only approves of who the countries themselves recommend be the GG.
  Although the GGs represent the crown in the capacity of signing passed bills into law with their power of "Royal Assent," it's all just a fancy and over complicated way of giving honour to the crown while not giving the crown any power. It's all just theater. The GG still has to just do what the parties currently in power want them to do.
  And yes, the GGs do have the power of dissolving parliament, like in Ausatralia, but that only happened because the government itself voted for it. They wanted to dissolve their own parliament, and the GG only signed off on it.
  The Queen didn't just swoop in and dissolve Australia's government. >
  
  Well, it's not exactly independence if a representative of a foreign head of state can dissolve your government, or even have a say in dissolving your government, regardless of their relation to the monarch. I wouldn't call that independent, anyway.
  And, besides that, it's silly to claim that Elizabeth II had no power. She met regularly with the Prime Minister of the UK, people at all levels of government cared about her opinion, she was obscenely wealthy, she met with heads of state from all over the world, and she was world-famous. Any one of those things would make a normal person quite powerful indeed. I mean, I don't know what kind of influence you have, but I'm certainly a lot less powerful than the queen was. Honor is power, with or without the superfluous u.
  We only say that she had no power because she had to operate under a lot of unwritten constraints, but that is also true of every other monarch that has ever lived. >
  
  It is independence because the Monarch can not dissolve the government. If the King lost his mind tomorrow and demanded the Governor General to dissolve the parliament of Canada he'd be laughed out of the country. The Governor General and Monarch are purely symbolic positions and we abide them just because it was in the initial agreement. 
  The only reason the Auastralian government was dissolved was because the Australians voted to dissolve it and the Governor General just signed it into being because that was what the government wanted to happen. If the Governor General didn't want to sign it, tough luck because that Parliament was getting dissolved anyways.
  And I wasn't talking about England. What their relationship with the Queen, and now King, is is not the same as those of countries like Canada and Australia. She, and now he, had has no powers over governance in Canada or Australia and other former colonies. >
  
  You don’t know what would happen if you had a mad king. Governments in relatively stable countries like in most of the western world are really defined more by tradition and precedent than anything else. When tradition is violated, law is mutable.
  Charles, pathetic a specimen as he is, probably isn’t this, but someday there will be a Trump king, and when that happens it will be either the end of the monarchy or the end of the commonwealth. The former is probably preferable. >
  
  I really don’t think you understand. 
  Good king, mad king, whatever the case may be, the monarch can not dismiss the parliament of any country. Just because he says to doesn’t mean Canada or Australia would just throw our hands in the air and go, “Well, I guess we don’t have a government anymore.“
  The UK would literally have to reconquer us for that to happen. >
  
  Pity we have to put up with King Charles on just about everything. Viva Republic. >
  
  FFS, we have more than enough indigenous art on our currency. >
  
  Lol do we. >
  
  Yes. Especially the over-embellished dot painting crap that is a product of the 1970s and is not traditional in any way. >
  
  I love dot paintings but you know, art is subjective isnt it. >
  
  Doesn't matter if you like them or not. They are not traditional. Why are they masquerading as anything but bullshit? Like that latest one plastered all over the Opera House - not traditional and a school could do as well, or better.
  And what about all the warnings about depictions of dead people? They seem fine with them on our currency... >
  
  They are traditional in that they made those patterns in dirt before they were handed canvas in the 70s. I do agree about the depictions though, that doesnt square. >
  
  When they take you off the money… the monarchy has lost it’s hold over the public. >
  
  Instead of a portrait of some entitle "Royal", they should feature a great big Knoife. >
  
  2 words: Honey. Badger. >
  
  Meanwhile the US still has genociders, slave owners and rapists on its currency >
  
  Put Chopper Read on there. Harden the fuck up Australia! >
  
  Eric Bana as Chopper. Or better yet Eric Bana as Poider. >
  
  Australians should have King Charles on their Visa cards.
  Let's face reality;  people are using cash less and less. >
  
  It should be a Violet Crumble bar, I'm a yank but I've been seeing those a lot in the grocery store recently so I can only assume those are your equivalent to the bald eagle >
  
  They should put Bart Simpson on it.  If it wasn't for that spiky haired little scamp, no one would know about Australia.  At least according to the rumor that I just started. >
  
  Absolutely horrific behaviour from those criminals >
  
  I didn't even realise we were still printing money, let alone using it. I haven't even carried a wallet for like 7 years. >
  
  Which isn’t really news as his mum, the late queen, also wasn’t on the last few rounds of notes… but whatever. Must sell copy, right? >
  
  The Aussies are getting cheeky now. They have the Union Jack in their flag and are subjects of King Charles whether they like it or not. King Charles should definitely be on the note. >
  
  I guess that's because King Charles is a bitch? >
  
  This is actually just petty and offensive. Surely they will replace it with a famous Australian >
  
  Will honor first Australians- such is the zeitgeist.  There is an idigenous dude on the 50 $ bill as is. >
  
  The coins? >
  
  I'm pretty biased, but I think Tom Cardy probably should make a small cameo on the corner of the bill or something. He is an absolute treasure. >
  
  5 Dollar Bucks >
  
  Good. What has he done for Australia to be given the honor of being featured in Australian money? (Or any currency for that matter). Feature something Australian in it instead. >
  
  The five most populous realms Charles III reigns over are, apart from the UK, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Jamaica. Only Australia and NZ have a Union Flag on their own flag. PNG and Jamaica don’t have the sovereign’s portrait on their coins, but the others do. >
  
  PUT A BUDGIE ON THE MONEY >
  
  FIVE DOLLARYDOOS? CHARLES, DID YOU KICK YOUR MUM OFF THE FIVVIE? >
  
  If the current state of London souvenirs is of any value, there are almost no artifacts with the new King on it. There are only products with the late Queen on it.
  It might be reasonable to say that the new King just yet doesn't have the appeal of his mother. >
  
  I guess the Ozzie's expect King Charles to kick the bucket any time soon and don't want to get stuck with a new obsolete $5 note? >
  
  Well look at the size of that nose on Charles. No wonder he is out. >
  
  change the currency name to dollary-doo’s >
  
  Please put an Emu on it! >
  
  Let's put Steve Irwin on it.  I have no actual stake in it, he's just my favorite Aussie 😁