4 ms·

I assume you are talking about the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam? The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. They is some suggestio

by slyall 4y ago

I assume you are talking about the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam? The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. They is some suggestion that her advisors might have know that the Govenor General was contemplating it, but not much beyond that. Certainly she wasn't pulling this strings behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

maxbond 4y ago
This is my understanding as well, and that this was likely the American & Australian intelligence (Kerr's communications with the CIA about the internal politics of his party, revealed by Chelsea Manning/Cablegate, provides circumstantial evidence which corroborates this, but of course we may never know for sure), but I do think it should be a sobering reminder that when people say, "don't worry about that power structure, it's merely ceremonial," we shouldn't take comfort in that. It is ceremonial until it isn't. Recall that recently in the United States, the Trump administration attempted to abuse the "ceremonial" role of Vice President to preside over the certification of the election in order to perpetrate a coup. If you leave power structures and veto rules hanging around, that no longer serve a functional purpose, it's a hazard; they're handles that a bad actor can grasp for. Imagine leaving a backdoor lying around in a piece of software because it's been there for so long that it's nostalgic, and everyone pinky promises not to abuse it. A more relevant example to the queen is Queen's Consent, which the royal family has used to influence legislation and further enrich themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent Returning to the royal family, it seems to me that even if they were "ceremonial", royal families are a monarchy hazard; letting them hold onto their status as a "royal family" invites the possibility of a monarchist revolution to reinstate them. You say they're just ordinary citizens who happen to be billionaires with gorgeous hats? Fine, let's make it official. You might say that's ridiculous, that there is no monarchist revolution on the horizon; I don't see any reason to believe there is either. But if we let them stay royalty for the next hundred years - what probability would you assign it? It's not zero, right? Personally I'd say between 1% and 5% (that's of course a number I made up based on my intuition), and I don't see that as a good risk/reward.
anonporridge 4y ago
> The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. Real power doesn't shout. It whispers.

by slyall 4y ago

maxbond 4y ago

This is my understanding as well, and that this was likely the American & Australian intelligence (Kerr's communications with the CIA about the internal politics of his party, revealed by Chelsea Manning/Cablegate, provides circumstantial evidence which corroborates this, but of course we may never know for sure), but I do think it should be a sobering reminder that when people say, "don't worry about that power structure, it's merely ceremonial," we shouldn't take comfort in that. It is ceremonial until it isn't. Recall that recently in the United States, the Trump administration attempted to abuse the "ceremonial" role of Vice President to preside over the certification of the election in order to perpetrate a coup. If you leave power structures and veto rules hanging around, that no longer serve a functional purpose, it's a hazard; they're handles that a bad actor can grasp for. Imagine leaving a backdoor lying around in a piece of software because it's been there for so long that it's nostalgic, and everyone pinky promises not to abuse it. A more relevant example to the queen is Queen's Consent, which the royal family has used to influence legislation and further enrich themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent Returning to the royal family, it seems to me that even if they were "ceremonial", royal families are a monarchy hazard; letting them hold onto their status as a "royal family" invites the possibility of a monarchist revolution to reinstate them. You say they're just ordinary citizens who happen to be billionaires with gorgeous hats? Fine, let's make it official. You might say that's ridiculous, that there is no monarchist revolution on the horizon; I don't see any reason to believe there is either. But if we let them stay royalty for the next hundred years - what probability would you assign it? It's not zero, right? Personally I'd say between 1% and 5% (that's of course a number I made up based on my intuition), and I don't see that as a good risk/reward.

anonporridge 4y ago

> The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. Real power doesn't shout. It whispers.