1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

QE2 meddled perniciously in OZ; "The mask slips +The shape of things to come"

Discussion in 'Personal' started by BigFrankEM, Jul 14, 2020.

  1. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    News of the release of 1200 pages of documents from the era when the Governor General sacked Whitlam's democratically elected government which had a majority in the Aussie parliament highlights:

    i) QE2 is a much less hands-off monarch than the constitutional commentators and MSM commentators would have us believe

    ii) The outlook once bigEars gets his feet under the table is beyond dire.

    Brexit + C19 + domBoris + bigEars interfering in everything

    Come back Jean-Claude & Angela, all is forgiven ?
  2. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    Your post might be more balanced if you pointed out that

    (1) These events happened nearly 50 years ago, and
    (2) the documents released show that the Queen personally had no role in the decision-making and was unaware of it until after the Governor General (an Australian) had taken the decision, and
    (3) if we're debating democracy, the Governor General sacked the Whitlam to force a general election (which Whitlam then lost massively - remember the 'Will of the People'?)

  3. gainly

    gainly Star commenter

    Rott Weiler, agathamorse and nomad like this.
  4. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    agathamorse likes this.
  5. ilovesooty

    ilovesooty Star commenter

    I thought this was about the ship and wondered how it could meddle. :confused:
    Jamvic likes this.
  6. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    1) So we cannot discuss The Holocaust, Dresden, Quisling, Appeasement......

    2) Standard modus operandi for decisions of this nature (aka "plausible deniability")

    3) So it's in order for QE2 to call a general election locally the instant domBoris is overtaken by Starmer at the polls?
    [ii] And had Whitlam won the election, what would the argument be then?
  7. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    What an odd reading of my post. I never suggested you couldn't discuss anything. Only that it would be better to explain how long ago these events took place.

    If your argument is that what the documents say isn't true anyway then there's not much point in using them as the basis for your post nor any point in further discussion as on that basis the truth is always just going to mean whatever you think it is and evidence counts for nothing.
    nomad likes this.
  8. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    The manifest irregularity of this momentous decision, ditching a democratically elected PM who had the confidence of the Aussie Parliament, is at the heart of the OP.

    Ditto: the very very close involvement of HMQ in said irregularity.

    In addition I looked to the perhaps very near future locally under her ever-so-overbearing heir.

    As always, people will reply (or not) as they see fit.
  9. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    Exactly. That's the core of your allegation.

    And the recently recent documents say she did not have a "very very close involvement".

    Australians then and now were divided as to whether the Governor General acted properly and in accordance with the constitutional conventions of Australia. I don't think it's appropriate for non-Australians to decide whether or not the decision was a "manifest irregularity". Your judgement is not one shared by all Australians.

    Can't see what it's got to do with Prince Charles. He was a serving naval officer in 1975
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2020
    nomad likes this.
  10. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    `Frank at the time Her `Majesty's governor had such powers but I think you are placing too much emphasis about the queen's role in the events.
    I wonder if you have a hidden agenda to stir up what is not there as the facts where displayed at the time and indeed led to outrage by many Australian politicians,particularly those wishing to separate Australia out of the Commonwealth.
  11. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    1: 1200 pages for her non-involvement.
    How long would the paper trail related to real involvement (sic) be?

    2: True, but I never so claimed

    3: But I made no reference whatsoever to his involvement in his mother's then doings. (Though I did allude very vaguely to the constant memos he sends to ministers which The Palace has tried for decades to hide. And quite specifically to his future rôle.)
  12. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    Kerr had discussed with Prince Charles the possibility that Whitlam could ask the Queen to dismiss Kerr.

    Kerr's papers in the National Archives of Australia reveal that he discussed his reserve powers and the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government with Prince Charles in September 1975. Kerr asked what would happen if he dismissed Whitlam and the prime minister retaliated by dismissing him. According to Kerr, Charles had responded: "But surely, Sir John, the Queen should not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time when you were considering having to dismiss the government".
    Rott Weiler likes this.
  13. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    The fictitious involvement that seems to exist only in your head. Clearly your beliefs about the Queen's involvement are based on what only exists in your head and not in the 1200 pages of actual documents. I can't see how any sensible debate about what's only in your head can take place so there's not much in further discussion.

  14. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    Two things worth noting here.

    First of all, the Queen does not involve herself in politics. She never has.

    Secondly, Gough Whitlam stated that he asked Kerr whether he had consulted the Palace about the dismissal, to which Kerr replied that he did not need to, and that he had the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court.

    In fact, Kerr was concerned that Whitlam might advise the Queen to dismiss him, and he considered it important that Whitlam be given no hint of the impending action. Kerr later stated that were Whitlam to seek his dismissal, it would involve the Queen in politics, something which should not happen.

    I suspect that the Queen was not directly, or even indirectly involved in the matter.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2020
  15. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer Occasional commenter

    If there is one thing to be said in favour of HMQ [and in my view it is just about the only thing], it is that she doesn't bother her head with things that she doesn't understand. Which is why she has never interfered in our political process, and why no-one has any idea what she thinks about anything. Given that 45% of the Australian nation voted to become a republic in 1999 [as against 54% who still wanted HMQ as their titular head of government] I would imagine that twenty years earlier she would have avoided doing anything that looked like interference.
    As for the prince of Wales he will, at some point early in his reign, attempt to interfere in the political process with some preposterously daft idea - all new buildings of any kind throughout the UK to be of neo-Gothic design, limited to three storeys and built in Portland stone or something equally barmy - and will receive such a towsing from parliament that he will retire from public life and spend the rest of his life lecturing his celery trench about tradtional Chinese medicine, and trying to stop the Duchess of Cornwall stubbing her fags out on the rubber plant.
  16. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Excellent recitation of the official line

    Which doesn't bear scrutiny however

    Apart from the case in question, two much more recent crucial interventions:

    i) Scottish Referendum when outside church one morning HMQ quite casually observes that she hopes people will think long and hard about voting to end the union. Indeed etonDave in his autobiography confirms that he asked her for that favour

    ii) Before Brexit Referendum HMQ let it be known, via the soarawaySun, that she wanted a vote leave result.
  17. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer Occasional commenter

    (i) the evidence for HMQ's actually having said this is flimsy - "was reported to have said" is the strongest evidence I can find from several newspapers [ranging from serious papers of record to the Daily Express] - and in any case, a "hope" that people will consider long and hard before casting a vote "to end the union" is a typical HMQ platitudinous piety, not an instruction to vote "stay";

    (ii) Nonsense:: 'The article reported that two unnamed sources had claimed that the Queen made critical comments about the EU at two private functions: a lunch for Privy Counsellors at Windsor Castle in 2011, and a reception for Members of Parliament at Buckingham Palace said to have taken place “a few years ago”.' {The Sun, 8.3.16 and 28,7.16). The Sun headline Revealed: Queen backs Brexit as alleged EU bust-up with ex-Deputy PM emerges was later the result of an IPSOS which required The Sun to withdraw the headline.

    I also don't care for your condescending tone - " Excellent recitation of the official line" - as though you were privy to information denied to hoi polloi; a typical conspiracy theorist ploy.

    All of which also begs the question of who, in their right senses, would follow political advice from a woman as out of touch with everyday life as HMQ.
    Rott Weiler likes this.
  18. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    A comprehensive rebuttal.

    With enormous detail re-the dirtyDigger's organ at that.

    The only problem is:

    It doesn't bear scrutiny

    re the Scottish vote you posted:

    i) the evidence for HMQ's actually having said this is flimsy - "was reported to have said" is the strongest evidence I can find from several newspapers [ranging from serious papers of record to the Daily Express] - and in any case, a "hope" that people will consider long and hard before casting a vote "to end the union" is a typical HMQ platitudinous piety, not an instruction to vote "stay";

    The only "paper" you quote by name is the Express.

    So what does google say of the Expresses's archives on the matter of HMQ interfering in the vote for the Scottish referendum

    Take a look and judge for yourself:



    Not only does the second article prove the matter conclusively but it also highlights by the contrast between the 2 articles published only a few days apart the world of half truths and soft sell which is the daily currency of the MSM with the royal family and which almost invariably makes "official denials" and the like not worth the paper they are written on.
  19. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    How on earth can you say that with certainty? The sovereign is intimate with government secrets and information, via the red boxes that arrive at her each day.,She reaches out as an independent advisor to the Pm's of this country, and even her own decisions are influenced by that relationship.
    She may seem aloof to joe public but part of that I feel is security and partly she doesn't want to be backslapped and hand crunched by those eager to greet.
    YOU may be right in some instances she misjudges the mood of a nation as in the death of Diana, but she can't be intimate with the needs of the whole population. I doubt many politicians know the everyday prices of items in the shops.
    Because she is not politically active and demanding change(unlike charlie boy who I feel might cause controversy, we have remained with stable head of the country, despite all the shenanigans many of the PM got up to!

Share This Page