PRO-REPUBLICANS have commenced their strategy to upend Australia’s constitution by painting Prince Charles as untrustworthy and at odds with Australia’s national interests.
Having repeatedly failed to turn citizens against Queen Elizabeth, republicans are now attempting to demonise her heir and, in doing so, heartlessly capitalise on the Queen’s age.
By taking this tack, they hope to muddy the debate around the nation’s most important foundational document.
SHAMELESS
Their aim is to shift the conversation away from one of constitutional protections and reason into an emotion-charged hysteria about the “un-likability” of Queen Elizabeth’s heir, Prince Charles.
The nastiness of this approach is shameless.
Firstly, their blatant circling of an ageing Queen exposes the republican movement as heartless political vultures.
And, secondly, it reveals their willingness to toss a close ideological soul mate – in the form of the Prince of Wales – under a bus in pursuit of their pet cause.
Australia’s system of government aside, the Prince and ARM chairman Peter FitzSimons share almost identical views on most issues including climate, economic and social policy positions.
This betrayal of Charles should be viewed as a full-frontal display of how the Left will stop at nothing in its dangerous grab for power over Australia and its citizens.
Republicans last week seized on a 45-year-old letter written by Prince Charles to then Governor-General Sir John Kerr. It was dated almost five months after Sir John had dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.
Left-leaning journalists saw this as an opportunity to pounce, declaring Charles had “backed the dismissal” and that his letter put at risk his “standing in Australia as heir to the throne”.
PERSECUTED
In truth, the Australian-educated Prince had merely offered emotional support – many months after the event – to a persistently persecuted Governor-General.
After Charles had read a newspaper report that Sir John had been given a “tough time” following the dismissal, he wrote a note of encouragement dated March 27, 1976.
The kindly letter ended: “Please don’t lose heart. What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do – and most Australians seemed to endorse your decision when it came to the point”, referring to Whitlam’s staggering 55 seat election loss (36-91) on re-contesting the following federal election.
The National Chair of the Australian Monarchist’s League Philip Benwell described reaction to the letter as “much ado about nothing”.
“When you read the substance of the article you find a young man writing compassionately in the hope that the incessant attacks on the Governor-General would not cause him to become depressed,” Mr Benwell said.
“It would have been better had His Royal Highness not said ‘what you did last year was right’ as it leads to people to assume that these words represent an involvement in Australian politics, which was clearly not the intention when you read the entirety of the letter which was one solely of kindness and compassion.”PC
The fuss about Charles’ Letter is now a storm in an inconsequential teacup!
What annoys me terribly is when he comes out with his ridiculous views on ‘climate change’. His views just slavishly mimic all the worst extremists who shout imminent gloom and doom constantly. Most of their blatherings are just that – absolute nonsense!
The palace was right to be concerned about the Kerr’s greediness, and his drunkenness and boorish behaviour, if it’s true that they stated those concerns, which they apparently held. They certainly deserved a more worthy representative, who should have been exhibiting their own exemplary standards.
Had the Queen been made contemporaneously aware of Charles’s stated correspondence with Kerr, she probably would have told him to shut up. The law of averages states that not every future monarch will be as sublime as the Queen, and though Charles presents as somewhat idiotic, he probably won’t be there that long comparatively before William and Kate take over, who on form show every sign of being winners.
Our current system of government has served us very well for a long time, so we should be careful what we wish for. Charles and his seeming limitations will soon pass, so he is nothing for the Republicans to hang their hats on.
Kerr was a Labor appointment. His liberal predecessor Sir Paul Hasluck, who had been asked to stay on by Whitlam, would have handled the events of 1975 very differently, and saved the nation much ensuing grief.
The prince endorsing the GGs decision?
What rubbish! Simply a young man being a friend to another older fella who was being vilified (as he is in this piece still).
When the bullies and thugs circle with their ignorant masses one needs all the friends one can find.
It appears the Prince and Sir John had a friendship. The important fact is that Prince Charles hasn’t been recorded as encouraging the sacking, just approving of it after the fact.