Re: Why do Australia and New Zealand have the Dollar and not the Pound?
Quote:
| As a boy in England in the late 70s, I recall old schilling coins still being circulated, and were considered to be worth 5 pence. Similiarly, two schilling coins were worth 10 pence. |
Blimey, that takes me back! I haven't seen a shilling or florin (2 shilling coin) in circulation in years, but quite right, they had values of 5p and 10p in the new system. Gradually these coins got withdrawn from circulation, but as far as I know, they're still legal tender.
I think several years ago I posted this valuable information for any time travellers hoping to fit in with pre-1971 Britain, but at the risk of repeating myself:
The old UK system consisted of 12 pence = 1 shilling; 20 shillings = 1 pound, and 21 shillings = 1 guinea. Coins were: the farthing (1/4 pence); halfpence, penny, threepence [pronounced 'thre'punny bit'], sixpence, shilling, florin (2 shillings); half crown (2 shillings and sixpence). There was a banknote for 10 shillings, and thereafter everything was notes. No longer in circulation were the crown (5 shillings), the half sovereign and sovereign (worth 10 shillings and 1 pound respectively, and made of gold). The crown was occasionally issued as a commemorative coin (e.g. on the death of Winston Churchill) but these rarely entered circulation.
The modern coinage originally consisted of the 1/2 pence, 1 pence, 2 pence, 5 pence and 10 pence. Then the 50p coin replaced the old 10 shilling note, and then the 1 pound coin replaced the 1 pound note. We now also have a 2 pound coin, made of two different metals, which is something of a curiosity. Over the years the 50 pence coin has changed size and weight, ditto the 5 and 10 pence coins. The 1/2 pence coin disappeared some years ago as nothing now costs 1/2 pence.
The florin was an interesting coin, as it was issued as a prelude to the introduction of a decimalised (i.e. 100 pence to the pound) system. This was in the 1880s. It took until 1971 for the new system to be introduced. Never let it be said that we Brits rush into things.

Going back to the original question, I think the whole issue reflects the change in status of the former UK colonies to equal partners in the Commonwealth rather than subject nations. You can see a similar thing in stamps. Go back sixty or so years, and all the British Commonwealth stamps had the Brit monarch's face one them - now it's rarely seen. Even in the UK, except on our definitive stamps (i.e. the 'ordinary' ones rather than commemoratives) the Queen's portrait has been reduced to a silhouette of Her Majesty's head in profile, taken from a photo taken in her twenties. And for a piece of real trivia - only British stamps have the name of the country of issue missing from them (this is in recognition of the fact that the UK invented the modern postal system). A tiny fact, but it does confer a great advantage to graphic artists designing Brit stamps as they have less lettering that 'must' appear on the stamp design.