8 votes Newly released 'Palace letters' reveal Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam government in 1975 without giving advance notice to the Queen Posted July 14 by Algernon_Asimov Tags: history, australia, politics, the dismissal, john kerr, gough whitlam, windsor royals, elizabeth ii https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/sir-john-kerr-queen-whitlam-palace-letters-released/12452616 Link information This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect. Title Palace letters reveal Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam before telling the Queen Published Jul 14 2020 Word count 213 words 3 comments Collapse replies Expand all Comments sorted by most votes newest first order posted relevance OK  Algernon_Asimov (OP) July 14 Link I've been reading commentary about these letters over the past day, and most of the commentary seems to be trying to imply or say outright that Sir John Kerr (Governor-General) connived with with... I've been reading commentary about these letters over the past day, and most of the commentary seems to be trying to imply or say outright that Sir John Kerr (Governor-General) connived with with Sir Martin Charteris (Queen's Secretary), and that Charteris tried to influence Kerr, and that this was all unconstitutional. It took until I read this article for me to realise that I'm not going crazy - because I disagreed with all the other commentary. I couldn't see any evidence of collusion or influence or unconstitutionality. All I could see was the Governor-General keeping the Palace up to date with ongoing events, and the Palace providing neutral sympathy as well as advice that, as long as the Governor-General acted according to the constitution (without saying what such constitutional action should be), he'd be fine. The most controversial thing that the Palace had to say was that the Queen wouldn't like being advised by the Prime Minister to dismiss the Governor-General (who that same Prime Minister had originally advised her to appoint!), which was a possible tactic the PM might use to avoid being dismissed by the GG. That's only natural. Appointing and dismissing the Governor-General is one of the very few and limited powers that the monarch has in Australia. The Governor-General has more powers than the monarch has! Most powers of the monarch are actually invested in the Governor-General by the constitution - which is why, for example, Prime Minister Robert Menzies had to pass a special law allowing Queen Elizabeth to open Parliament when she visited Australia in the 1960s. I expect the Queen therefore guards her right to appoint her representative very closely, and treats these appointments very seriously - and being told by a Prime Minister to dismiss her representative would not go down well. But that's it. That's the absolute worst thing I've seen cited from these letters. All the commentary I've read is trying to twist the narrative to show monarchical collusion to remove the Prime Minister, but Her Majesty's Private Secretary did not give the Governor-General any such advice. 1 vote  pallas July 15 Link Parent I think it's important to note that, if we are referring to the same letter, when Charteris writes that the Queen would be unhappy if she was advised by the PM to dismiss the Governor-General, he... I think it's important to note that, if we are referring to the same letter, when Charteris writes that the Queen would be unhappy if she was advised by the PM to dismiss the Governor-General, he wrote this immediately before explaining that she would have no option but to follow the advice and dismiss the Governor-General if advised to do so. 2 votes Algernon_Asimov (OP) July 15 Link Parent Good point. Thanks for that. Good point. Thanks for that.