3 ms·

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We alw

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondence. But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. And for fun, there's lots of salacious rumours that the CIA and UK's Foreign Office were encouraging the removal of Whitlam because he was perceived as too friendly to the darn Commies. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

goodcanadian 4y ago
But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary. Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).
- mst 4y ago
  It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.
- rswail 4y ago
  The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK. As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you". That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules of a constitutional monarch. If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. In a similar situation in the UK, where the House of Lords attempted to block supply passed by the Commons, the Lords have no power to amend the bill. If they refuse to pass it, the Commons can reintroduce the bill unchanged. The Crown would have no power to intervene unless there was a "loss of confidence" in the Commons, at which point the PM would have no alternative to advising the Crown to call an election.
  - goodcanadian 4y ago
    I actually think that is an advantage in Australia and Canada. The Governor General is not the monarch, but is (effectively) appointed by a democratically elected official. That gives them more freedom to actually wield that power (albeit extremely rarely). I, personally, think it is very useful to have that neutral referee with real power. As you say, the King is much more constrained in the UK. Although, he theoretically has the same power, it is much more problematic if he uses it. EDIT: To be clear, I am not well enough versed in the history to make a judgment on whether Kerr was right or wrong, and I understand that it will always be controversial, but I do think it is a feature and not a bug for the GG to have that power.
    - rswail 4y ago
      I don't agree. Parliament, representing the votes of the people, should be Supreme. The constraints on monarchy or a non-political head of state should be absolutely clear. The so called "reserve powers" have no place in a nation with a written constitution. Almost the single job is to call on someone to be Prime Minister and form a government that holds the confidence of the House of Representatives. Then swear in who that person advises you to as members of the Executive Council. We recently had the ridiculous situation that the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to swear him in as a "secret" additional minister in a number of ministries. That is now the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry.
m000 4y ago
> The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. "The Palace" sounds just like an insulation layer to guarantee Queen's infallibleness: If something is good, then the Queen did it. If anything turns out hairy, it's "the Palace". Similar to multiple management layers in companies. Unless it's a major blunder, the CEO won't take any blame. There are multiple management layers that "absorb" the hit.

goodcanadian 4y ago

But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary. Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).

mst 4y ago
It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.
rswail 4y ago
The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK. As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you". That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules of a constitutional monarch. If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. In a similar situation in the UK, where the House of Lords attempted to block supply passed by the Commons, the Lords have no power to amend the bill. If they refuse to pass it, the Commons can reintroduce the bill unchanged. The Crown would have no power to intervene unless there was a "loss of confidence" in the Commons, at which point the PM would have no alternative to advising the Crown to call an election.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  I actually think that is an advantage in Australia and Canada. The Governor General is not the monarch, but is (effectively) appointed by a democratically elected official. That gives them more freedom to actually wield that power (albeit extremely rarely). I, personally, think it is very useful to have that neutral referee with real power. As you say, the King is much more constrained in the UK. Although, he theoretically has the same power, it is much more problematic if he uses it. EDIT: To be clear, I am not well enough versed in the history to make a judgment on whether Kerr was right or wrong, and I understand that it will always be controversial, but I do think it is a feature and not a bug for the GG to have that power.
  - rswail 4y ago
    I don't agree. Parliament, representing the votes of the people, should be Supreme. The constraints on monarchy or a non-political head of state should be absolutely clear. The so called "reserve powers" have no place in a nation with a written constitution. Almost the single job is to call on someone to be Prime Minister and form a government that holds the confidence of the House of Representatives. Then swear in who that person advises you to as members of the Executive Council. We recently had the ridiculous situation that the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to swear him in as a "secret" additional minister in a number of ministries. That is now the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry.

m000 4y ago

> The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. "The Palace" sounds just like an insulation layer to guarantee Queen's infallibleness: If something is good, then the Queen did it. If anything turns out hairy, it's "the Palace". Similar to multiple management layers in companies. Unless it's a major blunder, the CEO won't take any blame. There are multiple management layers that "absorb" the hit.