Stanford University History Professor Gavin Langmuir recorded that during the Anglo Saxon centuries of English history, those who committed acts against the King or against the Church or its churchmen were subjected to severe monetary penalties. These penalties persist to this day, through fines issues by the courts and are denominated in Australian legal tender.
The Background
Keith W. Whitelam wrote that palace and temple complexes were the most important visual symbols of royal power and indicated more precisely the location of the center within a stratified society. The major visual message of the Temple of Solomon was conveyed by a fortified exterior that reinforced the ideas of strength and power as monumental architecture.
The economic significance of the temple should not be overlooked, since its courtyards provided the location for markets. More importantly, the temple also functioned as a treasure storehouse.
This conveyed the notion of the King as the central symbolic figure; the treasure was the result of gifts to the King from rulers and peoples in all parts of the world, or the display of wealth and profits from the international luxury trade.
Notably, the Australian $5 note incorporates on one side a graphic representation of the Australian Parliament building as a kind of fortified palace, and on the other side is a facial picture of the Queen.
Interviews with Experts
Judy Shaw of R & J Shaw outlined the situation, “Looking at the subject at hand, possibly it has seemed commonplace to have our monarch's portrait on our currency, as this has occurred on our coinage from 1855 and banknotes from 1923.”
She added, “This has continued right through to the present date with Queen Elizabeth II's effigy still being portrayed on all the decimal denominations. Obviously there is no expected re-sale premium because of this.”
Ms. Shaw further stated, “However, when a Royal event is in vogue, for example Charles and Dianna's wedding, that is when things can change. In 1981, we were overwhelmed by the rush on the Royal Wedding 50c coins that had the portrait of Charles and Di. The coins were sold by the bank bag and when the supply was not meeting the demand, the price increased accordingly. The same could be said for the 1981 Royal Wedding Commemorative $200 gold coin, at which time the intrinsic value of the gold content was far below the $200 face.”
“However, rarely does the excitement of such an event stand the test of time. In fact, after only a short period the premium on the coins briefly stabilised and over time decreased as demand declined. One has to be mindful that in saying this, there are other areas in numismatics that can come into play. Take the $200 gold coin for instance. Even though excitement about the wedding waned, the coin still had the base 'face value' of $200, just the resale premium disappeared; and of course there is the intrinsic value in the gold that comes into play today, as over the last 30 years gold has increased dramatically, subsequently increasing the value of the gold $200 coin far above face value and the heights hit in 1981.”
“Australian banknotes have had our monarch's portrait starting in 1923 with George V, and then followed by George VI, both Kings were portrayed on the 10/- through to 10 Pound. Following that era, Queen Elizabeth II was portrayed on the lowest paper denomination being the paper decimal $1, this ceased when the $1 note was replaced by a coin in 1984. With the issue of polymer notes in 1992, the Queen was again portrayed on the $5 being the lowest denomination in our polymer notes. From our observation, there has been no outstanding performer or increase in resale in the Australian note series simply because of a monarch's portrait. The main factors that increase the resale of Australian notes are primarily rarity and condition.”
“Australian banknotes have had our monarch's portrait starting in 1923 with George V, and then following George VI, both Kings were portrayed on the 10/- through to 10 Pound. Following that era, Queen Elizabeth II was portrayed on the lowest denomination only, being the 10/- note and then the paper decimal $1. This ceased when the $1 note was replaced by a coin in 1984, with the issue of polymer notes in 1992.”
Suggesting a role for heraldry in the imputation of state authority, scholar Louis Montrose noted that during the reign of Elizabeth I, Archbishop Edmund Grindal ordered the crosses upon churches’ roof beams be replaced with the royal arms. Those arguing against this rule at the time asserted that the Queen and her symbols were turning into idols.
Illustrating the power of ancient symbol, dealer Paul Hannaford stated, “We don’t sell any modern issues, but rather deal in coins specifically from older eras. Thus, the current royal goings on will not have any bearing to our clients through our dealings at all.”
He added, “As a general rule, a large number of collectors will collect by portrait, thus as an example, British collectors will collect quite rigidly in this manner, and I guess those that extend their collections into more recent issues will then need to buy the new Royal issues as they come out.”
Hannaford added, “Collectors sometimes also collect coins and notes by a specific monarch, so for example, issues of Queen Victoria are very popular, and these will be collected from all the relevant countries around the world that have released issues with her portrait on them.”
Symbols as Attractors
It is clear that some state symbols are so powerful that they, on their own, can create value in money.
Sources:
Personal Interview Judy Shaw, August 26, 2011
Personal Interview Paul Hannaford, August 26, 2011.
Gavin I. Langmuir Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 395, Students Protest (May, 1971), p. 217
Keith W. Whitelam The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 166-173.
Louis Montrose. The Subject of Elizabeth: Authority, Gender and Representation Author(s): Retha M Warnicke Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 285-286.
David Fox, Property Rights in Money, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
George Seton, The Law and Practice of Heraldry in Scotland, Edmonston and Douglas, Edinburgh, 1863.
Moss v Hancock (1899) 2 QB 111.
Join the Conversation