Palace letters reveal what Queen knew about Australian PM Gough Whitlam's dismissal
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- The newly released correspondence shows that the then governor general, Sir John Kerr, sacked the Labor government of Gough Whitlam in 1975 without giving advance notice to the monarch, because 'it was better for Her Majesty not to know'. Jenny Hocking, the historian instrumental in getting the documents released, says the letters show an inappropriate 'political' discussion between the governor general and the royal family, and that some of the legal advice given by the Queen's private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, is 'scandalous'
Subscribe to Guardian News on CZcams ► bit.ly/guardian...
The 'palace letters': read the full documents from the national archives here ► www.theguardia...
Support the Guardian ► support.thegua...
Today in Focus podcast ► www.theguardia...
The Guardian CZcams network:
The Guardian ► / theguardian
Owen Jones talks ► bit.ly/subsowen...
Guardian Football ► is.gd/guardianf...
Guardian Sport ► bit.ly/GDNsport
Guardian Culture ► is.gd/guardianc...
The 'palace letters': read the full documents from the national archives here ► www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2020/jul/14/the-palace-letters-read-the-full-documents-from-the-national-archives-here
The country would be quite different today had Gough Whitlam not been dismissed. I hadn't realized that the Queen was not informed of the decision, that's interesting.
It's always been known that the Queen was not informed immediately before the dismissal. What was not known was that she was long advised that the dismissal was 'on'.
LOL As if knowledge would be admitted, 'plausible deniability'.
Could I ask how? I genuinely don’t know. My gut feeling is what the heck does a queen of a far away land have to do with policy over here in the Colony of Australia?
@@jazzragu
The underlying and very real problem is that, should the Crown cease to hold Australia's sovereignty (which is the Crown's sole raison d'etre), Australia would, and will one day, have to decide how it wishes to govern itself. As a republic, in which case there will be the regular election of a president, a confederation, or some other system, each of which might lead to a break-up of Australia with states declaring independence from Camberra.
@@wuffothewonderdog the change of Australia to a republic would be largely symbolic unless we went undergo major constitutional changes - which as we know, Australians are not exactly welcoming to any proposed changes to the Constitution given the current ratio of failed referenda to passed referenda.
Australia already governs itself - the Monarch of Australia, which is a legally separate entity from that of the Crown of the United Kingdom, is already a figurehead and is represented by another figurehead Governor-General that makes few, if any, actual decisions. Any decision made by the Governor-General is on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia (the only exception was the dismissal of Gough Whitlam). The Governor-General already fulfils the same functions as the role of a President in other parliamentary democracies - it would literally merely be the title/the word in the Constitution that would change. There would be no real change in how Australia is governed.
Except it literally says that the Queen didn’t know? So the blame should be on the former Governor General surely?
It should but because everyone hate the uk so much they decide to skip over that part of the video and immediately blame the brits its ignorance at its finest
The Guardian has turned anti-monarchy in recent years, this was to be expected
Kerr was chosen by the Australian government to be their next Governor-General.
The UK government had no choice but to recommend that the Crown concur.
Whitlam was as crooked as most politicians and was rightly dismissed.
She did know. She just made sure she was asleep when Kerr did the deed.
of course the blame is on the governor general as people who lived through it well know...he was vilified in public every time he showed his face for ages...
So after watching the video, the answer is "nothing"? Unless I'm missing something, this is clickbait af
It's relevant, because there has been a great deal of speculation about what she may have known - so discovering that she knew nothing is still noteworthy.
@@DangusWangus yes but titling the video in such a way is still clickbait.
@@DangusWangus And this noteworthy information could have been noted in a less clickbait headline. The video could easily have been titled : The Queen Knew Nothing About PM Gough’s Dismissal. Just as accurate, and and Morocco informative. The only reason to not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a headline should be fore reasons of brevity, that is, when it is literally impossible to fit all the relevant information in the headline. In this case a more accurate headline would have actually been shorter.
Yous are not Australian...
Yous are still British, even your flag says you are. Yous all still come under imperial rule... Australia is just a part of the greater British empire.
@@barbara8321 Australia can change their flag if they want to just like what Canada did but they don't, the Queen can't even say "You Australians can't remove the Union Jack in your flag" bcoz she's just a figurehead (that's how parliamentary works, whether crowned republics like UK or parliamentary republic like Germany, head of state is mostly symbolic), would you be shock if Hawaii haves the Union Jack on their flag despite being US state? Or Fiji, an ex-UK colony, now a republic, but still haves the Union Jack on their flag.
Gough Whitlam was the best PM Australia ever had to date. it was free education back then, there was no excuse for any family not to be able to send their kids to uni. But oh no! he had to be got rid of.
Can't have people who think critically. Conservatives would never win.
So how did they get rid of him, I get that institutions nstg the left, but how did it work leally?
"Free" education is not truly free. What it means is people who did not go through college and university being taxed to fund those that do.
There is no such thing as "free" - for a system to stand, it has to be sustainable and just. The teachers and schools need to be paid, and it is immoral to simply take that money away from others to fund it if they are receiving no benefit from it.
If you want a degree, take out a loan and pay for it yourself. And if your degree is useless, you're going to have to deal with that decision, rather than scrounging from the taxpayer.
Bob Hawke was a better PM though, Whitlam had great ideas but he almost ruined the economy and he was divisive. He could easily have gone for an election rather than a polarising battle with the constitution.
@@Capt.Thunder Not really... the people who would've been funding the education of youth, would have benefited greatly from the increased wealth of the nation during their retirement years; from increased buying power to stronger retirement benefits. It's quite well known that money into education and science is a medium term investment that returns 5-10 fold.
And thus the USA & Britain saved Australia from the burden of making their own decisions ;)
The historian seems ignorant about royal prerogative, the monarch is above politics but the monarch can intervene if in times of crises, it's called check and balances.
😂 “Checks & balances” in a monarchy?… No, that’s a very American thing!
@@aheat3036 Right, because it's much more sensible to have the head of state and the head of government as the same person
American democracy is going so well right now
What's the point? Did not the queen asked why was he dismissed after he was dismissed? Didn't the queen asked why was he dismissed before me knowing about it? This is baloney!
We all knew this. But most people need these things confirmed before they will accept it. Just like what the Brits Did on the Streets of Ireland during the Troubles. Britain as a country does the lowest things all the while maintaining the Air of Righteousness
Don’t forget Whitlam was a republican....she didn’t like Tony Benn either and he was one
Australia’s not a free country like the U.S. It’s under the British crown so everything was done within arrangements and well within their rights.
@@aheat3036 Except that the US and CIA were blatantly involved? The US disliked Whitlam for withdrawing troops from Vietnam, his withdrawal of the ASIS from Chile during Pinochets, and especially for opposing the operating of a secret American spy base at Pine Gap. The US is far more of an empire than the UK has been in a hundred years.
Waiting to see it on the Crown
It will be a 5 minute portion of an episode, split into 1 minute segments. The rest of the episode will feature regular sitcom moments (love, hate, drives, sitting on a couch, etc).
I dork think they featured it ??
Let’s hear what she knew about Epstein
you went there....!!!
One of the major things that separates the (strong man) dictatorship-prone presidential system is the separation of the head of state from the head of govt. The head of state is not merely a figurehead (exception sweden and japan), they ensure a prime minister doesn't become a one-man ruler that threatens democracy. A viceroy (governor general) does this in the commonwelath realms. Not saying whitlam violated democracy, just that the role of head of state, as exercised through the governor-general is more extensive than cutting ribbons and speeches from the throne. They are the guarantors of freedom and democracy.
Also, keep in mind, the governor-general was only nominally appointed by the Queen. He was de facto appointed by the prime minister, similar to a minister of defence or ambassador. The same prime minister he sacked. To abolish the office of governor-general would be as foolhardy as abolishing the minister of defence or ambassadors.
Australia is a de facto republic. The Queen is the anglophone cultural figurehead of the commonwealth.
The GG, was clearly playing games, BUT, we must remember that a PM has the Queen's commission on two conditions; Firstly he must command the confidence of Parliament and, secondly maintain supply (ie get his budget through both houses of parliament). One can argue that Whitlam hadn't entirely lost the confidence of parliament, but he had failed to get his budget through.
This is because when the UK gave Aus independence it was given clone of the Westminster system of 1901. Unlike the UK Aus has no Parliament Act preventing the upper house from blocking supply. As Frasier never pointed Aus had an elected Senate rather than a House of Lords.
blocking supply was a ruthless gambit by the lib/nats under Frazer...not done before or since...it was completely cynical and sadly paid off...a rear guard action of the conservatives against a real reformer...
Is prince Andrew, In Jail yet?
No, pizza express. Not sweating of course. 😂
Don always said she did. ! Now its out and about. Who rules us still 😊
The crackpot historian playing judge, as well. It's interesting having read and watched so much how people forget once Whitlam was dismissed and parliament dissolved the voters did not return Whitlam to office.
His plans to get supply through what amount to IOU's when he couldn't pass his budget through the Senate struck at the very heart of the Westminster system. He didn't have the votes so Whitlam concocts plans to stay in office when he cannot get supply. None of that was appropriate let alone lawful. He couldn't move the Senate, fine, call an election.
In the end Kerr's use of the reserve powers served democracy. Let's hope it doesn't happen again, but Kerr sent the matter of who governs back to the voters to make the final call.
Jenny! Jenny! Jenny! 1975 Labour 33- Liberal Coalition 91. A cricket score. Don't ever tell former Servicemen and women that the loyalty to the Monarchy is misguided.
Bet the individual from Buckingham Palace who sacked him probably couldn't sweat either.
The Individual wasn't from Buckingham Palace, he was an Australian, granted use of the powers of the Head of State of Australia.
In the past, gov.-gen. were Brits but later, gov.-gen. is native, John Kerr is an Aussie not Brit.
@@davetdowell paid by the cia
This could be manipulative ... It could be planned out ... Not necessarily the way it's said here as if the QUEEN isn't informed !
I think the GG deliberately kept the queen out of this -because as Whitlam always said she would have but a brake on things until she had spoken to Whitlam! BUT Look at exactly it happened, 11th November! Remembrance day. early in the morning Canberra time is late in the evening the night before (10th Nov) in London and late in the afternoon Aus time would have been first thing in the morning of the 11th. The night before Remembrance day the Queen was always out (at the Albert Hall) and unable to take a phone call and on the morning of the 11th she would be on parade in Whitehall at the Cenotaph. This was always going to be two days of the year when the queen would be too busy and difficult to contact.
The Queen did or didn't know. Either way - so what?
"The British monarchy has no political power"
🤣🤣🤣
@@myamdane6895 when exactly DID she find out
@@BIGTHANKSHEESH She knew that John Kerr was considering dismissing Whitlam. So Kerr wrote to the queen informing her of his intention and the Queen informed him in reply that he had the right to do so.
Now I want you to think for a moment what the Queen would have against Gough Whitlam. In 1975 absolutely no money was leaving Australia going to the United Kingdom in an obligatory sort of sense. We were not a suzerainty. It was the Americans, as per usual, sticking their long noses into our politics because Whitlam wanted to nationalise coal or gas or whatever it was. They didn’t want that. So it was Kerr who obliged his American friends. Talking to the queen was a formality. He was the governor-general, her viceroy for goodness sake
@@myamdane6895 I can't lie: I do know trust "the queen didn't know" argument one bit after that
Is this supposed to be a distraction from the Trafficking ring stuff?
Was it 44 years ago or 43? Someone couldn’t decide and tried to have it both ways lol
It happened on November 11 1975. The year we were married.
44years ago or 43years ago?
The underlying and very real problem is that, should the Crown cease to hold Australia's sovereignty (which is the Crown's sole raison d'etre), Australia would, and will one day have to, decide how it wishes to govern itself. As a republic, in which case there will be the regular, divisive election of a president, a confederation, or some other system, each of which might lead to a break-up of Australia with states declaring independence from Camberra.
CIA involvement...
Illegally disposed of him...
What part of the Australian constitution is it not allowed?
@@user-nf9xc7ww7m sure it isn't illegal, but an undemocratic leader removing and elected leader is a pretty bad thing to do
He was an arrogant fool. A PM that can't pass budget should resign or call an election. He refused and was crushed in the following election anyway.
I😂 It’s a banana republic with kangaroo courts!
Well, it IS Bastille day... Just saying...
I get it.
The Australian Government serves The Crown of England.
No. The Australian government serve the people on their Queens' behalf. Constitutional Monarchy!
Kerr fired the same PM who hired him. Australia is a de facto republic.
What very ignorant comment. The crown of australia is different from the crown of uk.
Why does this give me some kind of james bond movie vibe?!
Because this looks like the menu system in Goldeneye for N64 😂
Because it was a CIA coup.
It’s seems Australia never really stopped being colony
colin minhinnick Grateful for what exactly?
For white privilege...
Worst PM in Australian history
How long is Charles 74 for?
Because that's how long they've got for their spell
Down with the monarchy
Be careful what you wish for.
Which Monarchy?
Yes colonies deserve their items back from the witch
Long live the King!
Death to Amerika!
Field Marshall Lord Slim was the last non-Australian governor-general, though his name was suggested for the post by the Australian government, and was a popular choice. Since his term the Australian government has always chosen an Australian for the post.
Surprise, surprise, Kerr was nominated in July 1974 by the then Australian prime minister, Gough Whitlam, to be their next Governor-General.
Whitehall always accepts whoever is recommend by the Australian government and the Crown accordingly appoints that choice.
Whitlam was as crooked as most politicians are and was rightly dismissed.
They LIED to her about everything, just like Boris did....