advertisement


Monarchy in the UK: is it finally over?

Of course, it is a nonsense that Australia still has a Governor and is not a republic already, and I feel the same way about monarchy in general. But seriously, I'm not sure what the bombshell in this Australian business is?

Back in 1975 what seems to have been the case that the Governor General wanted constant re-assurance that he was doing the right thing and the only place he could get that from was the monarch's private secretary, Charteris - who basically kept telling Governor Kerr that "you are doing the right things, we have every confidence in you, keep the Q. out of it, thanks." Which Kerr did by not telling the Charteris and Q. of his intention to sack Whitlam.

If the same situation had occurred under an Australian head-of-state, let's say an elected non-executive president, the outcome would probably have been exactly the same with the president deciding they had no option but to sack Whitlam and call for a new general election in order to break the political impasse that was actually becoming a danger to Australian society.
 
My knowledge of this dates back to this morning, I was only 9 in 1975.

Seems at first glance to have been a good decision using an unexpected power. It was used to force another quick election and it seems the public agreed with it given the outcome of the election.

The only discussion that seems important over the use of the power was whether it was used politically or constitutionally. Whether the queen knew or not I feel is irrelevant. It was done -legally- by her representative so she holds responsibility.
 
cutting42 said:
My knowledge of this dates back to this morning, I was only 9 in 1975.

Seems at first glance to have been a good decision using an unexpected power. It was used to force another quick election and it seems the public agreed with it given the outcome of the election.

The only discussion that seems important over the use of the power was whether it was used politically or constitutionally. Whether the queen knew or not I feel is irrelevant. It was done -legally- by her representative so she holds responsibility.
Click to expand...
I was resident Downunder in 1975. The problem was not so much the power but the fact that nobody knew the power existed. Claire Foy has a good line in the episode of The Crown where she dresses down Lord Salisbury and then Churchill for deceiving her - her job, according to Walter Bagehot, regarded as the expert on the British Constitution, is not to govern, but to ensure good governance. Good governance was arguably not happening Downunder at the time - Malcolm Fraser's Liberals had blocked the supply bills needed to keep the government functioning and there was all sorts of funny business on the Labour side, with Whitlam trying to get money from the Middle East via a Pakistani banker called Khemlani, completely bypassing the Treasury. Given the mess, something needed to be done - whether Sir John Kerr's approach was the right one is another question.
 
Joe Hutch said:
He's knocking on a bit himself, though. He could be Edward VII all over again. Though to be fair, Charlie's led a reasonably sober life, so he may be good for a few more years.
Click to expand...
But Bertie, having had a raffish life and bedded half the women in the Kingdom, went on to become a very good King. His personal diplomacy helped bring about the Entente Cordiale with France (hotter heads on both sides had wanted to go to war over the Fashoda Incident in the Sudan), and he perceived the danger presented by his eldest nephew, Kaiser Wilhelm II (who detested him in return) and his burgeoning imperial ambitions for Germany's rightful "place in the sun".

However, the world has substantially changed since then, and Britain has shrunk from a world-bestriding empire back to some soggy islands off the coast of continental Europe. Charles could therefore never have the same role as Bertie. He would need to reimagine completely the monarchy and its role in UK life, in order for the institution to survive. The British Monarchy has been quite adept at this - it was George V and Queen Mary who pushed the image of monarch for the people. This was carried on by another Bertie and his wife, who refused to leave London during the Blitz (when the Palace was hit by a bomb, Elizabeth the Queen Mother famously said, "Thank goodness, now I can look the East End in the face again"), and the goodwill was inherited by the next Elizabeth. That goodwill has been somewhat tarnished by the next generation (perhaps they should have heeded Bagehot's recommendation never "to let light in on the magic"). It will be interesting to see what Charles does with his truncated reign.
 
narabdela said:
A lot can change in 21 years.
Click to expand...
I think it'll happen eventually - the makeup of Australia has changed markedly since the end of the White Australia policy. The governments after the Second World War started to allow in non-British/Irish immigrants (a lot of continentals came to work on the huge Snowy Mountains hydroelectric/irrigation scheme), but it was the Government of Whitlam (he whom Kerr sacked) that finally killed it off.
 
I have distant memories of British bowlers trying to demolish the Australian batsmen, rather than the wicket, which almost caused a complete breakaway from the "mother country." Or was it the other way round?
 
PaulMB said:
I have distant memories of British bowlers trying to demolish the Australian batsmen, rather than the wicket, which almost caused a complete breakaway from the "mother country." Or was it the other way round?
Click to expand...
Correct, the infamous "bodyline" series in a desperate attempt to get out the run machine that was Don Bradman. It nearly called a diplomatic incident.
 
I'm not a royalist nor a republican would prefer to see a royal household simlour to the Netherlands and Norway. In other words cut back drastically. Dont see the Royal being dismantled its ingrained into our culture. It's the letters from the Royal household during the second world war I would like to see. These letters are firmly locked away for good reason and probably will never be released. Given the Nazi salutes on film probably better not released.
 
There are plenty of reports, seemingly well connected, that point to Charles making the firm somewhat smaller and the remoter arms are going to have get used to not living on the ticket. Which I would thoroughly applaud.
 
For better or worse in the UK at least, the awful standard of politicians will keep the royals in a job for a while yet. Boris as President anyone? :eek::eek::eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top