Naming of Victoria

The British Crown, Colonial Government, and the Naming of Victoria

MLA Educational Series — History and Colonisation

The colonisation of Victoria in the early nineteenth century was directed by policies formed in London under the authority of the British Crown and carried out by colonial administrators in New South Wales. This article examines the imperial framework that governed Victoria’s settlement — the roles of the monarch, the Colonial Office, and officials such as Governors and Police Magistrates. It traces how the Port Phillip District evolved into a separate colony, how it came to be named Victoria, and how this naming symbolised the extension of imperial authority. It also highlights the voices of Indigenous leaders who resisted Crown power and asserted sovereignty over their lands.

The Crown and Imperial Authority

In the 1830s and 1840s, the British Crown was held first by King William IV (until 1837) and then by Queen Victoria. Although the monarch’s executive powers were mediated by Parliament and the Colonial Office, the Crown’s symbolic sovereignty was central to legitimising colonisation (Belich 2009).

Crown sovereignty over Australia was asserted through proclamations and legal fictions — most notably the doctrine of terra nullius, which denied existing Indigenous ownership of land (Reynolds 1987). Following the establishment of New South Wales in 1788, subsequent colonial expansion was administered from Sydney, with the Governor of New South Wales acting as the Crown’s representative across vast territories, including what later became Victoria (Robinson 1987).

The Colonial Office and Imperial Policy

The Colonial Office in London directed all policy concerning settlement, land tenure, and Indigenous relations. During Victoria’s formative period, its leadership included Lord Glenelg (1835–1839), Lord John Russell (1839–1841), and Lord Stanley (1841–1845) (Shaw 1966). These officials shaped the Crown’s approach to colonisation, balancing humanitarian rhetoric with economic and political imperatives.

Although British policy nominally emphasised the “protection” of Indigenous peoples, in practice, frontier conditions in the Port Phillip District were dominated by settler expansion and violence (Broome 2005). Colonial administrators frequently ignored directives from London when they conflicted with local demands for land. This tension between imperial ideology and colonial reality defined the governance of early Victoria.

Governors and Local Administration

Until 1851, Victoria (then the Port Phillip District) remained legally part of New South Wales. The region was governed under the authority of the Governor of New South Wales, who served as the Crown’s principal representative.

• Governor Sir Richard Bourke (1831–1837) introduced reforms promoting settlement but sought to regulate land sales to avoid uncontrolled squatting.

• Governor Sir George Gipps (1838–1846) faced mounting conflict as settlers ignored restrictions, and as Indigenous peoples across the Western District, Geelong, and Port Phillip resisted dispossession (Shaw 1966).

The Crown also appointed Superintendents to manage Port Phillip directly. The most significant was Charles Joseph La Trobe, appointed in 1839. La Trobe oversaw policing, public works, and relations with Indigenous communities and reported to Sydney but wielded considerable autonomy (Boyce 2011). When Victoria became a separate colony in 1851, La Trobe was appointed its first Lieutenant-Governor, symbolising both administrative independence and continued royal oversight.

The Naming of Victoria

When separation from New South Wales was formalised in July 1851, the new colony was officially named Victoria in honour of Queen Victoria, who had reigned since 1837. Naming colonies after monarchs was a common imperial practice, reinforcing loyalty to the Crown and embedding monarchical symbolism in colonial identity (Cannon 1981).

Before separation, the region was known as the Port Phillip District, named after Governor Arthur Phillip, the first Governor of New South Wales. The shift from Port Phillip to Victoria represented both bureaucratic independence and the assertion of imperial unity — an act that fused royal authority with colonial geography.

For settlers, the name Victoria evoked pride and legitimacy within the British Empire; for Indigenous peoples, it marked the erasure of ancient place-names and the imposition of a foreign power over their lands (Broome 2005; Clark 1990).

Indigenous Voices of Resistance to the Crown

While the British Crown proclaimed sovereignty, Indigenous leaders across Victoria consistently challenged this authority, through both direct resistance and legal or diplomatic appeals.

Derrimut (Boonwurrung)

A prominent Boonwurrung man active around Melbourne in the 1830s and 1840s, Derrimut protested the taking of his people’s land. In a speech recorded in 1864, he lamented that his people had been “driven away” from Country and expressed despair at their erasure (Broome 2005). Derrimut’s appeals to colonial officials highlight that Indigenous leaders recognised the symbolic force of the Crown but rejected its moral and legal legitimacy.

William Barak (Wurundjeri)

As ngurungaeta (leader) of the Wurundjeri and spokesperson for the Kulin Nations, William Barak became a prominent advocate for land rights and cultural continuity. Through petitions, letters, and art, he appealed to Crown authorities to protect Indigenous land and autonomy, particularly at Coranderrk Mission (Barwick 1998). His leadership demonstrated that Indigenous sovereignty persisted within, and often against, colonial structures.

Wadawurrung Resistance

In the Geelong and Ballarat regions, Wadawurrung people resisted Crown encroachment through both defence and diplomacy. Leaders sought negotiation with officials such as Police Magistrate Foster Fyans, appealing for protection of sacred sites, hunting grounds, and eel traps (Clark 1990). Their efforts — often ignored or undermined — reflect ongoing Indigenous governance and moral authority despite colonial power.

These figures demonstrate that colonisation was not passive occupation but a contested encounter between two systems of law and sovereignty.

Symbolism of Naming and Imperial Authority

The naming of Victoria was more than administrative — it was ideological. By placing Queen Victoria’s name on the colony, the British extended royal sovereignty symbolically across the continent, asserting that the monarch ruled over both land and people (Belich 2009).

For Indigenous nations such as the Wadawurrung, Woi Wurrung, and Dja Dja Wurrung, this act represented a profound cultural and political displacement. Names that had carried stories of creation, law, and belonging were replaced by titles of empire. Thus, the name Victoria encapsulates the dual legacy of colonisation: imperial pride for some, dispossession and resistance for others.

Conclusion

The colonisation and naming of Victoria reveal the intertwined systems of imperial authority and Indigenous resistance. The British Crown, through the Colonial Office and its governors, extended royal power across the continent using symbols, proclamations, and names. Yet this sovereignty was never uncontested.

Indigenous leaders such as Derrimut, William Barak, and the Wadawurrung Elders resisted, adapted, and reasserted their own laws and custodianship of Country. The story of Victoria’s naming thus exposes both the reach of empire and the resilience of First Peoples — a reminder that beneath every colonial title lies an older, enduring sovereignty.

References

• Barwick, D. (1998) Rebellion at Coranderrk. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

• Belich, J. (2009) Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Boyce, J. (2011) 1835: The Founding of Melbourne and the Conquest of Australia. Melbourne: Black Inc.

• Broome, R. (2005) Aboriginal Victorians: A History Since 1800. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

• Cannon, M. (1981) Life in the Country: Australia in the Victorian Age, 1840–1890. Melbourne: Nelson.

• Clark, I. D. (1990) Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800–1900. Clayton: Monash Publications in Geography.

• Reynolds, H. (1987) The Law of the Land. Ringwood: Penguin.

• Robinson, P. (1987) The British Empire, 1783–1939. London: Macmillan.

• Shaw, A. (1966) A History of the Port Phillip District: Victoria Before Separation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Written, Researched and Directed by James Vegter (22 September 2025)

MLA

Sharing the truth of Indigenous and colonial history through film, education, land, and community.
www.magiclandsalliance.org

Copyright MLA – 2025

Magic Lands Alliance acknowledges the Traditional Owners, Custodians, and First Nations communities across Australia and internationally. We honour their enduring connection to the sky, land, waters, language, and culture. We pay respect to Elders past, present, and emerging, and to all First Peoples’ communities and language groups. This article draws only on publicly available information; many cultural practices remain the intellectual property of their respective communities.