AFTER almost 50 years of unjustified attacks on Queen Elizabeth over the Whitlam dismissal, pro-republicans are now calling her a coward for not playing an active role.
Gough Whitlam’s insolvent Labor government was sacked in 1975 by then governor-general Sir John Kerr after it refused to go to the people – as required – to win a mandate for its big-spending supply bills.
- The Left has viciously blamed the Queen for Mr Whitlam’s downfall.
- Yet she played no part in his dismissal. She was not consulted & was as surprised as Gough.
- Now they need a new narrative – to prove she’s wrong no matter what she did or didn’t do.
A caretaker government was subsequently appointed and Whitlam’s tinpot regime was annihilated at the following December 1975 general election.
The Left has ever since blamed the Queen for Mr Whitlam’s downfall – while largely ignoring the central role played by Sir John, who was Labor’s own appointee.
SMOKING
In an effort to validate almost 50 years of attacks on Elizabeth, and to help trigger anti-monarch sentiment, the pro-republic movement last year succeeded in having its “smoking gun” released to the public – The Palace Letters.
Even before reading them, Labor and its shameless leaders had launched their victory attacks.
“There’s something very wrong with our structures of government when someone on the other side of the world was involved and engaged in this process,” Labor leader Anthony Albanese said triumphantly.
“These letters reveal our unelected head of State was advising the governor-general on how to remove our elected prime minister,” his shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus confidently pronounced.
The problem was, of course, these letters revealed the exact opposite. The Queen played no part. She was not consulted and she was as surprised as Gough when Sir John pounced.
Even passionate – but honest – people of the Left were incapable of spinning a salvageable outcome.
Constitutional expert and pro-republican Anne Twomey said the letters made it clear the Queen had played no part in Mr Whitlam’s dismissal.
EXPLODING
“There seems to be this assumption the Queen wanted Sir John to dismiss Mr Whitlam but there’s no evidence of this,” she said. “I actually think the opposite.”
With the impact of a hand grenade exploding in its face – and after almost 50 years of unsubstantiated hype exposed – the Left was in full retreat.
They needed a new narrative – something to prove the Queen couldn’t be trusted no matter what she did or didn’t do.
Well, they’ve finally gone public with their new sound bite: Elizabeth is, actually, a “coward” for not getting involved in Whitlam’s dismissal.
According to online pro-republican commenter Noel Jones the Queen should be intervening in Australia’s political process and is, in fact, a “coward” for not doing so.
Mr Jones said claims that Australia’s constitution prevented the monarch from interfering were “rubbish”.
“Nothing in the constitution prevents the monarch from getting involved,” he wrote in a post on Politicom.
“Sure, Elizabeth Windsor is a coward who avoids any involvement, as we saw in 1975.
“But that is her personal choice. It has nothing to do with the constitution.”
Queen Elizabeth played an active role in World War II, serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service.PC
Oh well, the greedy old woman will soon be replaced by His Highness the Royal Tampon and Her Most Disloyal Floozie! And Andrew Parker-Bowles was a good friend! This whole stable of parasitic in-breeders are not worth feeding.
Chris you are disgusting – it is a fairly low and dirty sort of comment – it is not constructive, just a bit sick. Nothing there obviously except a bit of schoolyard hate and spite.
You and your tongue are nothing but a wart on the backside of Australia and everything it stands for.
It was Australia’s decision and Australia’s alone!
The Queen made that quite clear – she would NEVER interfere in such a monumental (although correct) decision!
This fool unfortunately doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
As I understand it, the Queen’s mandate is ti “reign over us, not rule over us”.
The “sacking” thing may well be very much in the hands of the people and the constitution.
Yes reign and rule are synonymous to the Authority of the Crown. What if the subjects purely hate the Queens reign over them? Does this reign business allow the subjects to dethrone Our Queen? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Are reign and Rule equally in Authority? especially when the Crown needs to protect its people and their interests? Gods forbid, our system is the envy of the world, and needs to be protected from those who wish harm to our sovereign! God Save the Queen and her interest, which in turn are our interests and all those who love their freedoms and culture.
The Queen is there as a presence like a parent who is there to ensure that the two squabbling kids Labor/Liberal, Left/Right know there is a presence outside of themselves, but to whom they owe respect and acknowledgement , so the war doesn’t go OTT. Look at the mess of the nations that do not have that drawn line precaution – no names mentioned. Glad that, with all it’s faults, we live in Australia under the political model that we have!
If the monarch was a horse, rather than a person, what difference would it make?
Apparently she will never interfere, and always does exactly as told by politicians, without question, without any capacity for judgement or personal discretion.
So why not a horse?
“So why not a horse?”
Why not Turnbull or Rudd for President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Australia? That way, we could have a horse’s arse.
Queen Elizabeth exemplifies all that is good in our society and is the penultimate constitutional Monarch. When she is gone, many will quickly realize how great she truly is and how her service to the Commonwealth and in particular to her realms has been second to none. Long may she continue to reign. What a wonderful and long suffering monarch she is.
‘Penultimate’? Ron, what sort of twisted gibber is this? Betty was a cruel sister and a lousy mother of misfits.
To label our Queen a ‘Coward’ is not only disrespectful to our head of the Commonwealth, but outright BLASPHEMY! How DARE THEY! Don’t they fear the wrath of God upon them? The Bicameral system is the envy of the world! Do the republicans believe they will do a better job than a system that’s has been around for hundreds of years? And even if they did, GOD FORBID… The Commonwealth system is perfected in the MONARCHY! Long live the British (Sons and daughters of the Covenant) Empire (Commonwealth Nations)…
So we will overlook that remark, and warn the members of the Republican Party to respect their Queen! They are still under the authority of the Nation’s Head, The Honourable Her Majestic Queen Elizabeth 2nd.
Hey Jesse…
You’re taking the piss, yes?
Well said
If the monarch is not accountable for the actions of the monarch’s appointed representative, who is?
The constitution of the Monarchy already have an accountability that protects us from tyranny, that’s the point of the commonwealth system, it has laws in place that prevents tyranny! If the republicans were in power(GOD FORBID) who will be our accountability? Would be rulers who hate God and support outrageous doctrines? Who will burn people at the stake? Sorry… the monarch is an accountable system in its own right!! God save the Queen.
Sir John Kerr alone, as he didnt act on the Queens orders, let alone inform her of his actions
The GG serves at the pleasure of the monarch.
The monarch is obliged to review the decisions of the GG and ensure she is pleased with them.
So was Windsor pleased in 1975?
I don’t know. No one does. She is too gutless to tell us.
She is too sensible to embroil herself in a well made decision that was firmly supported in the constitutional vote that ensued. As an ex labor voter I was shocked by the decision of the GG at the time but humbled by the result of the vote that ensued. The only gutless ones are those that attack a gracious and sensible monarch who knows her role and who chooses to uphold that role in a very responsible way.
Kerr acted alone and without guidance… he bears the cost of his own decision.
I don’t wish to sound grotesque but I think Noel, Ken and Peter do a little bit more than GetUp together.
They are either the same person or insane strangers.
What are the odds?
Wow Justin, you nailed us!
How did you do it?
No Justin, you just sound like your typical feckless fool from the far-right.
Carry on under turd… its your style
Has anyone else noticed how our socialist correspondents Noel & Peter only post during business hours? Hands up if you think theŷ’re GetUp plants and should be treated accordingly.
Well, yeah. They’re an idiot tag team running a communist line. Let them speak but please ignore their ignorance.
Now you wouldn’t be Morrie’s sock puppet, would you?
As dumb is two doorknobs, to use an old phrase from your era.
So anyone who actually backs Australia – and wants an Australian at the top – must be from Getup. Is that your view?
How ridiculous.
Getup or F…up
So anyone who actually backs Australia – and wants an Australian at the top – must be from Getup. Is that your view?
How ridiculous.
Ms Windsor’s reign has been a catastrophe.
Twenty one countries have abandoned the British crown on her watch, more than for any other British monarch in history. Even her home kingdom is now teetering, with a reunited Ireland and an independent Scotland drawing ever closer.
She has been the worst British monarch in history, and she’s still not done.
Let’s hope one day we are the 22nd country.
‘According to online pro-republican commenter Noel Jones the Queen should be intervening in Australia’s political process and is, in fact, a “coward” for not doing so.’
Perhaps Noel harbours a hidden hope that Her Majesty will abdicate in order to become the President of the Republic of Australia (this would certainly be consistent with his repressed cultural cringe, which is clearly evidenced by his reflexive visceral outbursts and infantile tantrums). Those on the left of politics spend so much time trying to bend reality to their will that they become victims of their own confused ideology, and they ultimately end up presenting as would schizophrenics.
Oh, ”Morrie,” you are so predictable.
You are just full of emotional nonsense, and nothing intelligent to say.
”Those on the left of politics spend so much time trying to bend reality to their will that they become victims of their own confused ideology, and they ultimately end up presenting as would schizophrenics.”
Again you poor old soul, pot-kettle.
So say’s Morrie, who thinks a foreign monarch should reign over Australia, and that Australian can never be trusted with an Australia at the top, because he thinks Australians are too stupid.
And – hilariously – claims he backs Australia.
The GG is appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch, as set out in the constitution.
If the monarch’s representative did the right thing in 1975, she should have backed him.
If he did the wrong thing, she should have sacked him.
She did nothing. And proved she is despicably gutless coward.
The distant, absent, part-time foreign monarch has nothing to offer Australia.
Except the putrid stench of colonial subordination, that is.
“Except the putrid stench of colonial subordination, that is.”
Gough Whitlam has been dead for almost seven years now – how do you think he smells?
The fact remains that the Whitlam Labor Government had a serious problem, money supply bill blocked and they did not have the voting numbers to get that bill passed. Therefore, the Whitlam Labor Government was unable to govern but refused to accept this and call a new election, so the permanent Head of State acting on advice and constitutional laws met with Prime Minister Whitlam and asked him to agree to head a caretaker government and to call an election as soon as possible. Whitlam refused and the Governor General turned to the Coalition Opposition Leader Fraser who agreed to accept the caretaker role and call an election.
The people made the decision, a landslide defeat of the Whitlam Labor Government at the ballot boxes.
Assuming you are right, why did Ms Windsor not back her appointed representative?
Her representative removed the elected head of government without warning and against the wishes of parliament. It was without precedent.
If that is not worth her voicing an opinion, what is? What will it take?
Why is she so despicably gutless?
Good point Mr Jones.
Why allow a foreign power, of any description, influence what happens here in our great country?
To all of the above, ignorance is bliss it is said.
What about your game of (knowingly) lying about the constitution….is that ignorance or bliss?
John, if that’s your best rebuttal, then I think your argument is lost.
But more to the point, you never responded in a rational way to Noel’s valid points.