In 1975 Australia's Governor General, John Kerr, sacked the prime minister. Kerr always said that he hadn't told the Queen what he was planning and that his decision was made in the final days and hours. Thanks to a legal challenge by @palaceletters we know this isn't true.
Kerr acted unconstitutionally. The PM, Gough Whitlam, had the confidence and support of the lower house. Kerr also acted months after coming up with the idea, and wrote numerous letters to the Queen, telling her of his plans.
The Queen, whose role is supposed to be advising and warning the PM, said nothing to Whitlam about Kerr's plans and said nothing to Kerr to stop him from sacking the PM.
When Jenny Hocking discovered the existence of these letters in Australia's national archive she asked to see them. What followed was a long legal battle to get them released, with the Queen herself insisting they were private and personal correspondence.
In the end Hocking won, and the letters revealed a great deal. Read all about this extraordinary and shocking saga in Jenny Hocking's book "The Palace Letters", available to buy at republic.org.uk/shop

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Republic

Republic Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RepublicStaff

27 Aug
“President Blair” is up there with some of the more daft arguments from monarchists. Firstly Blair has already done ten years as PM, a position far more powerful in terms of domestic politics than a US president. The alternative to the monarchy is not a US style constitution.
It’s a parliamentary republic in which political power is shared between government and parliament, with a limited constitutional role for the president.
Blair and the other ex-prime ministers who get mentioned are ex for a reason. It’s highly unlikely they get elected or even stand. However, if they did stand and were popular enough to win then it’s absolutely right that they get in.
Read 6 tweets
26 Aug
This is Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson, an Icelandic historian serving as the sixth and current president of Iceland. He took office in 2016 and was re-elected in 2020 with 92.2% of the vote.
His field of research is modern Icelandic history, and he has published works on the Cod Wars, the 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis and the Icelandic presidency, among other topics.
Guðni is the son of teacher and journalist Margrét Thorlacius and sports instructor Jóhannes Sæmundsson. His brother Patrekur Jóhannesson is a former Icelandic handball national team player.
Read 18 tweets
15 Mar
The Crown Estate does not fund the monarchy: A Guide.

The Crown Estate pays 100% of its profit to the treasury. This would continue in a republic. The government funds 100% of the Sovereign Grant. That would not continue in a republic.
It was George Osborne and the Coalition government who, in 2011, invented the Sovereign Grant and created a link to Crown Estate profits.
But the link is nothing more than a calculation the treasury makes to determine how big the grant should be. And it's only a ratchet clause. If CE profits fall the grant remains the same as previous years. If CE profits rise then the size of the grant goes up.
Read 7 tweets
10 Sep 19
In his evidence to the Commons committee in 2012 @GrahamSmith_ told MPs:

"We are supposed to be a democratic society, and our sovereignty ought to lie with the people, not the Crown or Parliament. It ought to be the people who are the fount of honour.
It is the people who ought to be rewarding and recognising their fellow citizens, and the monarch ought not to have a place in this process at all...
put in place a process involving an independent committee...the rules of that process ought to be entirely in the hands of a cross-party parliamentary committee.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(