Jump to content

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


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
 
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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,

Because Australia has never had a revolutionary generation to break the chains.

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 Mal

Posted Images

Must be true he has the medal the others include the Epstein lay low and the not so rare pop up I'm on the civil list don't forget 🤔  

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

likely will change to a republic when the Queen passes away.

I still think that it would not be a foregone conclusion...but would probably have a greater chance then at the present time.

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.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...