Whittlesea considers renaming Prince Andrew Avenue
Whittlesea City Council is weighing a proposal to rename Prince Andrew Avenue in Melbourne’s northern suburbs in response to ongoing controversy surrounding the former royal’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The discussion, which gained momentum after the decision to strip Prince Andrew of his titles, reflects a broader push to reassess public landmarks that carry contentious names.
What sparked the debate?
Last week’s developments, including formal actions by authorities that distanced Prince Andrew from royal roles, rekindled public interest in whether the avenue bearing his name should remain unchanged. Community members and local leaders say the name broadcasts a personal association that is now at odds with widely held values in the area. While the majority of residents may have little direct connection to the name, the visible street name has become a focal point for discussions about local identity and historical memory.
The council’s role and process
Whittlesea City Council has signalled that a formal consultation process will determine whether the street name should be renamed. Officials emphasize that any change would follow established steps, including public submissions, community forums, and alignment with state naming guidelines. The council notes that such processes are designed to balance sensitivities, historical context, and practical considerations for emergency services, mail delivery, and navigation.
Community perspectives
Residents and local organizations hold varied views. Some argue that the focus on a street name overlooks ongoing concerns about accountability and how public memory is reflected in everyday geography. Others point out that renaming could foster a sense of inclusion and help ensure public spaces align with contemporary community standards. In urban areas like Melbourne’s north, street names are part of daily life, affecting not only residents but visitors who navigate the suburb for work, school, and services.
Practical considerations
Renaming a street is a logistical undertaking. The council must consider service delivery, emergency response times, postal routing, and the cost to residents and businesses who may need to update documents and branding. Any decision will be made with careful planning to minimize disruption while achieving a transparent and democratic outcome. The council also has the option to keep the existing name, rename with a different style (e.g., a thematic naming scheme), or place a commemorative marker if appropriate to address community sentiment without a full rename.
What happens next?
The council has advised that it will publish a timeline for the consultation phase, inviting input from residents, local groups, and stakeholders. A final recommendation will be presented to council members for a vote, followed by any necessary statutory processes. The decision will be influenced by public feedback, legal considerations, and alignment with state government guidelines for street naming and renaming.
Broader context
Across Australia, communities have revisited street names tied to controversial figures. Proposals often surface amid national conversations about memory, reckoning with history, and the role of public spaces in reflecting shared values. While not every rename gains approval, the process itself can foster dialogue and greater civic engagement at the local level.
Why this matters for the Whittlesea community
Street names are a practical feature of daily life, but they also carry symbolic weight. A rename could signal a commitment to inclusivity and a reorientation of local identity toward values that the community wants to promote. As residents await the council’s next steps, the case highlights how local governance can respond to social change while maintaining clear, transparent procedures for residents who live and work in the area.
