The Palace letters have proved to be every bit the bombshell they promised, and neither the Queen nor Sir John Kerr emerge unscathed, writes Jenny Hocking. | OPINION
These include Kerr’s concern that prime minister Whitlam might recall him as governor-general, which he discussed with Prince Charles in September 1975 in a profound breach of political and constitutional practice.
Charteris followed this up the next day with the clearest suggestion that the reserve powers may need to be used which, Charteris wrote, "places you in what is, perhaps, an unenviable, but is certainly a very honourable position. If you do, as you will, what the constitution dictates, you cannot possible [sic] do the Monarchy any avoidable harm. The chances are you will do it good". He ends with a reference to the "discretion left to a governor-general".
This is just the first day of viewing these extraordinarily significant letters and there is much still to see and even more to assess. As we delve deeper into them, just as important as what is in the letters will be what isn’t there – the gaps, the events and people who should be but aren’t. Like the then High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason for instance, Kerr’s secret guide and confidant whose role remained secret for 37 years.
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Palace letters reveal Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam without informing the QueenIt's been revealed Sir John Kerr did not tell the Queen of his intention to dismiss then-prime minister Gough Whitlam before the historic decision on 11 November, 1975.
Read more »
'Palace letters' reveal Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam before telling the QueenA first look at the newly released 'Palace letters' reveals then governor-general Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government before telling the Queen, because 'it was better for Her Majesty not to know'.
Read more »
'Palace letters' to show what Queen knew about Whitlam dismissalThe &x27;Palace letters&x27; - correspondence between the Queen and Australian governor-general Sir John Kerr in the lead-up to the Whitlam government&x27;s dismissal - will be released to the public later today.
Read more »
The Palace letters are every bit the bombshell they promised to beThe Palace letters have just blown apart the claim that the Queen played no part in Sir John Kerr's decisions | Jenny Hocking palaceletters
Read more »
More than 40 years in the making: Read the Palace Papers in fullThe documents behind the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Government illuminate one of the biggest events in the nation's history.
Read more »
Governor-General's intentions to dismiss Whitlam 'likely known to the palace' | Sky News AustraliaPolitical Consultant Jim Middleton says it is likely the Palace was aware Sir John Kerr wanted to dismiss Gough Whitlam.\n\nPrivate letters between Queen Elizabeth II and former Governor-General Sir John Kerr were released on Tuesday revealing Sir John dismissed then-prime minister Gough Whitlam without first informing the Queen. \n\nThe National Archives released more than 1,000 pages of documents from Mr Whitlam’s 1975 dismissal, including much sought-after correspondence between the Governor-General and Buckingham Palace. \n\n“I decided to take the step I took without informing the Palace in advance … it was better for Her Majesty NOT to know,' one of the letters penned by Sir John Kerr reads.\n\nMr Middleton said it was ‘unsurprising’ Sir John Kerr withheld his decision to act from the palace because the palace seemed to know such a dismissal was possible.\n\n“What we see in the palace papers so far … is that they were well aware it was on his mind and indeed there was communication between the palace and Sir John Kerr about this very matter,” he said.\n\n“The palace also knew that Sir John Kerr feared that Gogh Whitlam would sack him.”\n\nMr Middleton said the dismissal demonstrates an imbalance in the relationship between the governor-general, the Queen and the elected prime minister of Australia, and wonders whether the place should have given warning to Mr Whitlam. \n\n“On this occasion, the Queen chose to do and observe what her appointed representative wanted rather than what Australia’s elected Prime Minister desired,” he said. \n\n“Constitutionally, should the palace have informed Gogh Whitlam that their appointed representative the governor-general was worried about being sacked by the prime minister? \n\n“Should they have been informing him that dismissal was an option in some form or another?” \n
Read more »