Jump to content

Britain's Prince Charles wrote to support historic Australian PM sacking - media


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Britain's Prince Charles wrote to support historic Australian PM sacking - media

 

2020-10-24T045730Z_1_LYNXMPEG9N057_RTROPTP_4_WW2-ANNIVERSARY-BRITAIN-REMEMBRANCE-EVENT.JPG

Britain's Prince Charles delivers a speech during the VJ Day National Remembrance event, held at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, Britain August 15, 2020. Oli Scarff/Pool via REUTERS/Files

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Charles sent a hand-written letter of support to Australia's governor general in 1976, backing his controversial sacking of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, local media reported on Saturday.

 

The letter, published on Saturday by The Australian newspaper, is dated four months after Queen Elizabeth's representative in Australia, John Kerr, took the unprecedented step to dismiss Whitlam without first warning the palace or the prime minister.

 

"Please don't lose heart," the heir to the British throne wrote in the hand-written letter to Kerr on Mar. 27.

 

"What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do — and most Australians seemed to endorse your decision when it came to the point."

 

The letter was revealed in an extract of a book "The Truth of the Palace Letters: Deceit, Ambush and Dismissal in 1975" by Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston, due to be published next month.

 

Whitlam's firing remains one of the country's most polarising political events because it represented an unmatched level of intervention by the Commonwealth.

 

Historians say the country was never told the full story behind Whitlam's removal during a political deadlock over the Budget and in 2016, one historian sued Australia's National Archives for access to letters between Kerr and the Queen.

 

In July, the 211 so-called "palace letters" were published, pulling the veil from one of the great mysteries of Australian politics, and re-igniting a conversation about whether the country should cut ties with Britain and become a republic.

 

(Reporting by Paulina Duran; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-24
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save the Governor-General! The Proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General's Official Secretary was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr's cur.
 Gough Whitlam

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

Don't understand how Australians put up with the old ,outdated colonial style Governer General. 

 

The article refers to an event nearly 50 years ago, culture has changed significantly since. There have been referendums on the matter, Australians still prefer the Queen to a republic model, as i do, would loath to have a politically appointed "Head of State". - likely will change to a republic when the Queen passes away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The article refers to an event nearly 50 years ago, culture has changed significantly since. There have been referendums on the matter, Australians still prefer the Queen to a republic model, as i do, would loath to have a politically appointed "Head of State". - likely will change to a republic when the Queen passes away.

Not before time. The last referendum was a farce, engineered by Howard and Abbott, our very own British quisling.

The British Deleted has about as much relevance to Australia as a room heater in the tropics, apart from the simple-minded who still buy Woman's Day and Women's Weekly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Not before time. The last referendum was a farce, engineered by Howard and Abbott, our very own British quisling.

The British Deleted has about as much relevance to Australia as a room heater in the tropics, apart from the simple-minded who still buy Woman's Day and Women's Weekly.

 

I'm not simple minded, nor do I buy Woman's Day or Women's Weekly - IMO an insulting comment. UK cultural and political heritage still has a strong influence  in Oz. Thankfully we have yet to embrace US culture, One Nation is on it's way out.

 

When the republican movement can articulate a reasonable methodology on how they propose to select a non political person to represent Australia as a whole, fine. Until that time, personally, my view is the Queen is an excellent non political Head of State and represents a great example of a non partisan peoples representative. As I mentioned in my post above I do think once the Queen passes away, a sad day, Australia will transition to a republic, just hope whatever method chosen is a wise path - though I don't hold my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

I'm not simple minded, nor do I buy Woman's Day or Women's Weekly - IMO an insulting comment. UK cultural and political heritage still has a strong influence  in Oz. Thankfully we have yet to embrace US culture, One Nation is on it's way out.

 

When the republican movement can articulate a reasonable methodology on how they propose to select a non political person to represent Australia as a whole, fine. Until that time, personally, my view is the Queen is an excellent non political Head of State and represents a great example of a non partisan peoples representative. As I mentioned in my post above I do think once the Queen passes away, a sad day, Australia will transition to a republic, just hope whatever method chosen is a wise path - though I don't hold my breath.

Non-partisan? Perhaps you should read the OP again, plus the Palace Papers that reveal one of the Queen's secretaries was encouraging Kerr to sack Whitlam. Those papers had to be extracted with the journalistic equivalent of a crowbar. Are you telling me it can't happen again?

Not insulting at all, the major constituency of royalists in Australia are women who breathlessly follow the latest marriages, births and scandals in the aforementioned periodicals. Luckily for the publishers, the subjects are a randy, dysfunctional and fecund lot.

Not difficult at all to select a non-political person, we have Living Treasures in Australia. And there's plenty of eminent Australians who are apolitical.

Isn't it time we cut the strings to an outmoded and irrelevant institution on the other side of the world, and stood on our own two feet? Pathetic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say but most Aussies don't realise that most Brits don't give a flying F about you, what you do or even the royal family. This is an old statement and QE2 is your head of state. Vote her out or get over it but PLEASE stop whining on England and put your own fires out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Sorry to say but most Aussies don't realise that most Brits don't give a flying F about you, what you do or even the royal family. This is an old statement and QE2 is your head of state. Vote her out or get over it but PLEASE stop whining on England and put your own fires out.

 

I hold UK, NZ and UK citizenship. I do agree, whilst they deny the fact, many Australians are wingers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Non-partisan? Perhaps you should read the OP again, plus the Palace Papers that reveal one of the Queen's secretaries was encouraging Kerr to sack Whitlam. Those papers had to be extracted with the journalistic equivalent of a crowbar. Are you telling me it can't happen again?

Not insulting at all, the major constituency of royalists in Australia are women who breathlessly follow the latest marriages, births and scandals in the aforementioned periodicals. Luckily for the publishers, the subjects are a randy, dysfunctional and fecund lot.

Not difficult at all to select a non-political person, we have Living Treasures in Australia. And there's plenty of eminent Australians who are apolitical.

Isn't it time we cut the strings to an outmoded and irrelevant institution on the other side of the world, and stood on our own two feet? Pathetic.

 

 

Again we disagree, for me the Queen is not outmoded, she represents the Commonwealth and it's peoples. Up to each Commonwealth member to decide whether to continue as a member or not. The Queen has stated Commonwealth countries own their destinies.  Out of curiosity who do you believe are current 'Living Treasures' capable of representing the people of Australia without any inherent bias?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Again we disagree, for me the Queen is not outmoded, she represents the Commonwealth and it's peoples. Up to each Commonwealth member to decide whether to continue as a member or not. The Queen has stated Commonwealth countries own their destinies.  Out of curiosity who do you believe are current 'Living Treasures' capable of representing the people of Australia without any inherent bias?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Living_Treasure_(Australia)#Current_list

 

Take your pick. Sir Gustav Nossal, Noel Pearson, Julian Burnside. I suppose Bob Brown would be unacceptable to you.

Yes, we disagree. I've never been one for living in the past. As another poster has said, do you really think the UK cares about Australia? They have enough problems of their own, the Commonwealth has served its purpose. It's an anachronism.

You're reminding me of James Barrie.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Not before time. The last referendum was a farce, engineered by Howard and Abbott, our very own British quisling.

The British Deleted has about as much relevance to Australia as a room heater in the tropics, apart from the simple-minded who still buy Woman's Day and Women's Weekly.

You've only been around for a couple of hundred years, you're still our children. So, in 1976 the children were arguing so Mummy and Daddy gave you a clip round the ear and sorted the problem out. Now, 50 years later, you are bitching about it. Get over it you ungrateful little brats or you'll get another clip around the ear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I hold UK, NZ and UK citizenship. I do agree, whilst they deny the fact, many Australians are wingers.

Yes, sorry bruv. No offence intended to Kiwi brothers. You guys are cool. I just don't get this down with the England <deleted> when all can vote their way out of the so called Commonwealth, which most Brits ain't bothered about... to the dismay of the Yanks of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Living_Treasure_(Australia)#Current_list

 

Take your pick. Sir Gustav Nossal, Noel Pearson, Julian Burnside. I suppose Bob Brown would be unacceptable to you.

Yes, we disagree. I've never been one for living in the past. As another poster has said, do you really think the UK cares about Australia? They have enough problems of their own, the Commonwealth has served its purpose. It's an anachronism.

You're reminding me of James Barrie.

 

 

 

Given so many UK nationals have stated they would like to live in Australia in preference to the UK, I would say, yes they do care, but it isn't about UK nationals interest, it's about the symbolism of the Queen.

 

Can't see the point of change for changes sake. IMO none of the people you mention would get the easy acceptance of the majority, just controversy and argument. No I do not know who would be appropriate, no-one immediately comes to mind. May be Keating, comes across as a really smart fun guy, though I guess plenty of people would go crazy whinging - see what I'm saying?

 

What's wrong with James Barrie? Went to see Peter Pan at a London theatre years ago (mother took me to the theatre every Xmas), child fantasies can be wonderful.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, polpott said:

You've only been around for a couple of hundred years, you're still our children. So, in 1976 the children were arguing so Mummy and Daddy gave you a clip round the ear and sorted the problem out. Now, 50 years later, you are bitching about it. Get over it you ungrateful little brats or you'll get another clip around the ear.

Good try, but no cigar. Remind me, please. How many ungrateful nations have decided to tell you to p##s off?

Don't you think Mummy and Daddy have enough problems of their own, with one of the progeny bonking underage girls?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

The article refers to an event nearly 50 years ago, culture has changed significantly since. There have been referendums on the matter, Australians still prefer the Queen to a republic model, as i do, would loath to have a politically appointed "Head of State". - likely will change to a republic when the Queen passes away.

The manner in which the referendum question was framed, guaranteed a "no" response, as the "model" for "head of state" was not fixed nor agreed on.

Deliberate move by the likes of Howard J and Prof D ( dinosaur) Flint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The manner in which the referendum question was framed, guaranteed a "no" response, as the "model" for "head of state" was not fixed nor agreed on.

Deliberate move by the likes of Howard J and Prof D ( dinosaur) Flint.

Wher'es the manipulation in the questions?

 

Electors were asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Preamble question[edit]

Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.[14]

The preamble would have been:

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Living_Treasure_(Australia)#Current_list

 

Take your pick. Sir Gustav Nossal, Noel Pearson, Julian Burnside. I suppose Bob Brown would be unacceptable to you.

Yes, we disagree. I've never been one for living in the past. As another poster has said, do you really think the UK cares about Australia? They have enough problems of their own, the Commonwealth has served its purpose. It's an anachronism.

You're reminding me of James Barrie.

 

 

General cosgrove

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Sorry to say but most Aussies don't realise that most Brits don't give a flying F about you, what you do or even the royal family. This is an old statement and QE2 is your head of state. Vote her out or get over it but PLEASE stop whining on England and put your own fires out.

I think the feeling is returned. Most Australians don't care about the UK. There are few royalists and  the mainly female magazine readers who love all the royal family stuff. 

I think few feel passionate about keeping the queen, and the majority would prefer she was gone,  but I think the Australian  nature is to be suspicious of change.

Malcolm Turnbull, who ran the Republic program,  was a bit arrogant and unpopular  back then, and there were disputes about what shape it should take. 

I just think many people don't care but I bet if it was put to a vote today it would get up.

If the queen goes it will happen.

I don't want to get all politically correct but if you think about what the Commonwealth represents, and the subjugation of so many people over time, and the patheticness of the royal family, they really should go. I'm starting to feel fired up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Wher'es the manipulation in the questions?

 

The manner in which the limited possible models to appoint a head of state was the beginning of the manipulation by Howard et al 

The voting on the eventual question in parliament caused considerable disquiet in populous, and the public wanted and "independent" head of state, not a partisan one appointed by the parliament.

Howard was aware this model was the least acceptable to the public,  not to mention the preamble problems.

Both questions had to be answered in the affirmative by the majority of states and territories which with the likes of Queensland and Tasmania, and to an extent Victoria, was not going to happen, because of the model proposed.

The referendum was forced through with the outcome known before the votes were cast. 

 

all poliies know , never ask a question, which you do not know the answer to.

Another one of Howards cynical legacies amongst many.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Don't understand how Australians put up with the old ,outdated colonial style Governer General. 

What is it with some countries? All the stupid ranks and titles, and weighed down with medals having never fought in any wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The manner in which the limited possible models to appoint a head of state was the beginning of the manipulation by Howard et al 

The voting on the eventual question in parliament caused considerable disquiet in populous, and the public wanted and "independent" head of state, not a partisan one appointed by the parliament.

Howard was aware this model was the least acceptable to the public,  not to mention the preamble problems.

Both questions had to be answered in the affirmative by the majority of states and territories which with the likes of Queensland and Tasmania, and to an extent Victoria, was not going to happen, because of the model proposed.

The referendum was forced through with the outcome known before the votes were cast. 

 

all poliies know , never ask a question, which you do not know the answer to.

Another one of Howards cynical legacies amongst many.

 

 

What other models do you believe would have been acceptable to politicians as they set the rules for a referendum. I agree politicians selecting a 'president' is fraught with unknows, it's why I didn't support the referendum. I too am not a fan of Howard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...