Long Live King Charles

[Sttew]

Curs letter showed he had talks with Charlie and he advised the queen.

Fiction! You want to believe that.

"While the Royal Household believes in the longstanding convention that all conversations between prime ministers, governor-generals and the Queen are private, the release of the letters... confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam."

 

[anchor man]

Fiction! You want to believe that.

"While the Royal Household believes in the longstanding convention that all conversations between prime ministers, governor-generals and the Queen are private, the release of the letters... confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam."

You want to believe that. go ahead.

 

[Sttew]

You want to believe that. go ahead.

I think I will believe official letters released and made accessible by the High Court than some B grade TV drama that you can't name but still rely on as your "source".

 

[anchor man]

I think I will believe official letters released and made accessible by the High Court than some B grade TV drama that you can't name but still rely on as your "source".

As I said previously.

 

[Roylion]

You want to believe that. go ahead.

What you are suggesting has no supporting evidence.

Paul Kelly, Editor at Large of the Australian newspaper and author of ten books on Australian politics, including two on 'the Dismissal' and Troy Bramston senior writer at the Australian and also a prolific author on Australian politics including 'the Dismissal' state that at no point did Kerr inform Charles (who was a personal friend) that he was going to dismiss Whitlam.

In fact they also state there was no contact between Kerr and Charles during the constitutional crisis. They also make the point that Charles had no role in the crisis as a decision-maker and whatever Charles personally thought about the dismissal (he supported Kerr's decision as a friend), Charles had no bearing on the course of the crisis or the outcome.

 

[anchor man]

What you are suggesting has no supporting evidence.

Paul Kelly, Editor at Large of the Australian newspaper and author of ten books on Australian politics, including two on 'the Dismissal' and Troy Bramston senior writer at the Australian and also a prolific author on Australian politics including 'the Dismissal' state that at no point did Kerr inform Charles (who was a personal friend) that he was going to dismiss Whitlam.

In fact they also state there was no contact between Kerr and Charles during the constitutional crisis. They also make the point that Charles had no role in the crisis as a decision-maker and whatever Charles personally thought about the dismissal (he supported Kerr's decision as a friend), Charles had no bearing on the course of the crisis or the outcome.

As I said to anyone.. believe what you like.

 

[Roylion]

As I said to anyone.. believe what you like.

You made the claim.

Present your evidence that the Queen knew beforehand that Kerr was going to sack Whitlam. Also present your evidence that Kerr told Charles beforehand and that Charles then informed his mother.

Even Paul Keating rejects the notion the Queen knew what Kerr was going to do beforehand or actively conspired with Kerr to remove Whitlam.

"The idea that the Queen may have wished or actively conspired in arrangements with Sir John Kerr to affect a party political outcome in Australia amounts to no more than tilting at shadows."

The release of the 'Palace letters', confirm beyond doubt the view accepted by Whitlam and Fraser since 1975 – that the Queen had no role in the dismissal and no prior knowledge of the event.

 

[peetoo]

There was still a hell of a lot of correspondence even though no information apparently was shared

This is to an administration accosiated with a monarchy of a foreign country.

Is it a foreign country? I’m still a UK citizen which disqualifies me from being one of HM Australian members of parliament.


At the very least some anomalies need to be sorted out

 

[peetoo]

I just saw a SMH headline saying ‘queen comments’

Just no. The queen was QE2 there’s no queen Camilla 1

They didn’t call Phillip ‘Prince’ or ‘duke’. It was Prince Phillip or Duke of Edinburgh.

Queen Camilla if they must

 

[AdelaideGT]

just saw a SMH headline saying ‘queen comments’

Look up old newspapers. The consort has almost always been referred to as 'The Queen' and occasionally 'Queen Name'.

And Phillip was also known as 'Prince Consort'.

 

[peetoo]

Look up old newspapers. The consort has almost always been referred to as 'The Queen' and occasionally 'Queen Name'.

And Phillip was also known as 'Prince Consort'.

So it’s queen Camilla 1 ? It will grate a lot of people, like sir Jimmy savile

 

[Roylion]

So it’s queen Camilla 1 ? It will grate a lot of people, like sir Jimmy savile

She's not the Queen Regnant. She's the Queen consort.

Queen consorts are not numbered because they don't reign in their own right.

For example the wife of George V was Queen Mary, but she wasn't Queen Mary III. (Mary II was Queen Regnant between 1689-1694

 

[peetoo]

She's not the Queen Regnant. She's the Queen consort.

Queen consorts are not numbered because they don't reign in their own right.

For example the wife of George V was Queen Mary, but she wasn't Queen Mary III. (Mary II was Queen Regnant between 1689-1694

My posts should suggest I agree?

There’s also been many examples in history where queen consorts have done a pretty good job of running the show when the king (mostly male) have been away or incapacitated

 

[Roylion]

My posts should suggest I agree?

There’s also been many examples in history where queen consorts have done a pretty good job of running the show when the king (mostly male) have been away or incapacitated

Yes. But they're not the head of state.

Camilla is not Queen Camilla I, but she can still be referred to as 'the queen'.

 

[DickieKnee]

How and what hold does the King have on how we run our country? Any examples?

The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King's representative. In practice, they are Australia's Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.

 

[peetoo]

Yes. But they're not the head of state.

Camilla is not Queen Camilla I, but she can still be referred to as 'the queen'.

Roylion even when people agree with you, you want to differ.

In peoples mind, ‘the queen’ is the lady who just passed away. Calling Camilla ‘the queen’ may be technically correct, but people will not like it.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion even when people agree with you, you want to differ.

What are you disputing? I've explained the difference between queen regnant and queen consort. Both are called 'the queen' in everyday use.

Calling Camilla ‘the queen’ may be technically correct, but people will not like it.

So what. Camilla is the current queen. They'll have to get used to it.

 

[peetoo]

What are you disputing? I've explained the difference between queen regnant and queen consort. Both are called 'the queen' in everyday use.


So what. Camilla is the current queen. They'll have to get used to it.

You can’t send folks to the tower any more 1 hear

 

[Roylion]

You can’t send folks to the tower any more 1 hear

That's right. It's a constitutional monarchy these days. Not that that has anything to do with what I said.

 

[peetoo]

That's right. It's a constitutional monarchy these days. Not that that has anything to do with what I said.

Does she have any role to australia?

 

[Roylion]

Does she have any role to australia?

Queen consort. Wife to the head of state.