Liz, the avowed arsonist. This is a movie I’ve got to see.
I wonder what … interesting … source our friend got this hyperbolic allegation from?
Although didn’t that pesky King George burn down the White House? Not the property of a rich woman, but in some sense he and his taxpayers sure paid for his mistake. Imagine how powerful Britannia would be today were the USA still fully in the royal fold.
As far as I know, she could not have. The appointment of ministers is apparently not a royal prerogative in Australia (at the federal level), as it is in her other realms, but rather a power assigned by the Constitution directly to the Governor-General. At least, that’s the prevailing interpretation, which the Palace found extremely convenient at the time.
If she doesn’t have the power to appoint, does she have the power to dismiss, or is that also reserved for the GovGen? If she doesn’t have the power to dismiss, then it’s not correct to say that the firing was the exercise of the Queen’s powers.
Looks like that’s also the GG’s power: “Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.”
If that’s the case then it’s incorrect to say the firing was the exercise of a royal prerogative. It was the action of an Australian governmental official, exercising a power granted to him by the Constitution of Australia, drafted by Australians.
Just how scary the reserve powers are is a different discussion, but QEII as Queen of Australia has no authority to use them, has no authority to appoint somebody to use them and has no authority to advise the person who does have the authority to use them.
As above. No. Repeat simply no.
Kerr was not her minion. She had and has no authority to countermand the GG.
There was no act of omission for good or bad. The Crown does not interfere in the affairs of Australia. QEII knows this to be true and understands it way better than a disconcertingly high portion of her Australian subjects.
Whitlam, who appointed him as GG, thought Kerr was his minion.
The letters released in 2020 show that Kerr did discuss the possibility of dismissing the Whitlam government with the Palace before doing the deed. The Queen did not officially know it was to be done before it was but her Private Secretary was definitely involved and in part Kerr did what he did so Whitlam could not beat him to the punch and ask the Queen to remove Kerr from office first.
The fact she kept her hands clean officially does not mean they were in actuality.
The letters were made public, in full and online, on 14 July 2020.[6][21] Hocking’s book The Palace Letters cites a key letter from Charteris of 2 October 1975 which shows that ‘the Queen, Prince Charles, and [Sir Martin] Charteris were all aware by September 1975’ that Kerr was considering dismissing the government, and knew of his failure to warn Whitlam of that possibility.[22] The Palace itself continues to deny that it played ‘any part’ in Kerr’s decision to dismiss the Whitlam government.[23]
Ok. I stand utterly corrected.
In which case I’ll join forces behind the Greatly Esteemed and Learned @Northern_Piper. It appears that when this was posted (to which I erroneously replied):
it seems @Thylacine chose to tar the Crown (and QE2 individually) with something it/she was manifestly not capable of doing, much less guilty of doing.
Although admittedly Australia’s arrangements have some weird vestiges where blame appears to attach in odd ways to anachronisms.
I see echoes here vaguely akin to the ongoing ructions in the USA and the SDMB about the slowly evolving status of Puerto Rico. Nobody is quite sure what’s really what, nobody is exactly happy, but not enough people are quite upset enough to try something thoroughly different from first principles. And so it festers in a weird anachronistic fashion better not trotted out into the light and put to use.
Sure, Kerr discussed the Australian situation with The Palace. He was a toady ingratiating himself there, but he was not seeking their instructions. That was his prerogative, not theirs. When he thought he needed an opinion on his actions he sought out Garfield Barwick, in contravention of Whitlam’s instructions.
Lots of people knew the nature and disposition of Kerr and fed that to their advantage.
Whitlam’s fatal error was that he totally misjudged his own appointment.
Kerr gloried in his vice-regal position, reminiscent of George Curzon and considered himself a most superior person. His second wife Nancy born Anne Dorothy Taggart was of a matching mindset and as “Lady Macbeth of Yarralumla” forged a formidable reputation for snobbery. They reintroduced the abandoned trappings and conventions of court etiquette as a mark of their rarified status. Lady Anne insisted on being referred to as “Your Excellency” and that women curtseyed to her. Unlike QEII she did meddle in Australian political affairs.
There is a memo of Sir Paul Hasluck, Kerr’s predecessor after a conversation Sir Martin Charteris, Queen’s Private Secretary, of the Palace’s disillusionment with the Kerrs, and belief that "the Kerrs, and especially Lady Kerr, were ‘very greedy’ ".
So you think the Queen should have intervened in Australia’s political matters, on her own bat, and overrule the Australian Governor General in his exercise of his powers under the Australian Constitution?
On a different note: I understand the historical importance of the Queen’s death. I am sorry for her family and her subjects who grieve her passing. However, I do not see the necessity for wall to wall coverage in the US. I’m sure she was a good monarch for the 70 years she reigned. She was not the monarch here and I really don’t want to watch the funeral stuff that isn’t really the funeral. A couple of updates would do.
I am really more interested in news that actually has an impact on me, the US, the world really. Because she really didn’t have that much power.
The American tv networks don’t give a fuck what you think. They are in the business of selling advertising which means that they are going to show what the majority (or largest plurality) of their regular viewers want to see. That, apparently, is coverage of the Queen’s death.
I’d much rather see coverage of the late Queen than more talking heads blathering on about shit they know nothing about in place of actual news.
The thread title is a lot more sinister now…
To be honest, I haven’t watched tv news coverage in decades. It’s all crap.
Just needs a tiera
This is what AI art was made for. (Created with the upmost respect)