Talk:Palace letters

Merge to Hocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Don't Merge. Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

---

This should be merged to Jenny Hocking. There is no need to have an entire article about this case.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

[Moved from below] I think we should hold off merging until the letters are published. If they are significant then the subject certainly deserves its own page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If they are significant, the information needs to go on the Dismissal page. The researcher's quest for the royal letters is not in itself important enough for a page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree - We should wait until the contents of the letters are first known before merging the article, if it turns out they are not controversial then certainly should be merged with Jenny Hocking article, if however the contents turn out to be more sinister then it should remain its own article. We won't know until they are released fully.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree - "The Palace Letters" as an object of itself have been given significant coverage by news over the years, and currently fits the criteria for notability. We should hold off merging until they have been analysed, and then we can re-assess. Catiline52 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Notability is not an argument against merging. We should see if the letters are significant and then assess whether they need their own article. We should not do the reverse.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. I agree with waiting until we know more about what is in these papers. There is no urgency about this. At the moment, there's no telling what the papers may contain, although the Director-General's response to the High Court's order looks intriguingly defensive. However, for the longer term I agree with Jack's point below about the title. Errantius (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. Not only would knowing more about the contents matter about whether to merge them, at this point the letters themselves are not remotely synonymous with Hocking. Should they need merging into a page, one directly related to the Dismissal itself seems better as it seems only the legal challenge section is related to her Shadowmaster13 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. The 'Palace letters' have a much greater notoriety than Jenny Hocking and deserves its own page. Someone well versed in Australian Constitutional Law would be able to expand on the precedence that the High Court decision that the 'Palace letters' sets. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is clear consensus against the merge, even discounting the fact that Thejoebloggsblog has decided to "vote" twice. I don't understand the logic of "waiting" when the article has already been creation, but there's no point in continuing this "discussion", so I've decided to close it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems

The title is not specific enough. Which palace? Which letters? The article is not neutral. It is written from the point of view of Hocking and Whitlam, and uses Hocking as a source. It's not true to say "When Gough Whitlam became the Prime Minister of Australia he quickly....replaced God Save the Queen with the current Australian national anthem" - see the article Advance Australia Fair. And this and several other statements are of very questionable relevance.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

British control?

• The release of the 'Palace papers' also represented the end of British control over Australian archival material

I question this. When the Queen communicates with her Australian governor-general or her Australian ministers, she does so as the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the UK. Any decisions she may have taken or may yet take in relation to these letters, regardless of which of her personal staff advised her, are decisions of the Queen of Australia. British control does not enter into the matter.

I can't access the source (The Australian) but I think the journalist was just being sensationalist. Should a recognised authority on Australian constitutional affairs back up the claim, I would naturally withdraw my objection. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the whole article is too sensationalist. See above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the section. I found the Caisley article, but not the Bramston one to which it refers, in Factiva through a library. First I removed the "British control" comment, which is not in Caisley's article. I also think that, if any "recognised authority on Australian constitutional affairs" were to be asked, they would agree with Jack of Oz on the legal position. Then, looking at the rest—which wrongly assumed that the High Court actually ordered release—I didn't see anything left that I thought should be kept. The question of this decision's significance as a precedent seems rather OR. Errantius (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Release reactions

Here are some reactions to the release, which I note here although won't yet add any reactions into the article since nobody has yet had time to look at many of the letters. Please feel free to add to this list: (Errantius (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC); additions Errantius (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Errantius (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

Why are you creating this list???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Assembling material in case there was much to record in the article. Errantius (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

14 July 2020

• Knaus, Christopher; Davies, Caroline (14 July 2020). "'Better for Her Majesty not to know': palace letters reveal Queen's role in sacking of Australian PM Whitlam". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Zhou, Naaman (14 July 2020). "Gough Whitlam dismissal: what we know so far about the palace letters and Australian PM's sacking". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Bonyhady, Nick (14 July 2020). "What are the Palace Letters, in a nutshell?". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
• Crowe, David (14 July 2020). "Queen's role revealed but Palace denies any part in Whitlam dismissal". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Hocking, Jenny (14 July 2020). "The Palace letters are every bit the bombshell they promised to be". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Twomey, Anne (14 July 2020). "Most surprising of the Palace letters shines new light on Whitlam". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Bonyhady, Nick; Wright, Shane (14 July 2020). "The blue blood and the boilermaker's son: Kerr's relationship with the Queen's man". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Khalil, Shaimaa (14 July 2020). "Gough Whitlam: Letters show Queen not told in advance of Australia PM's sacking". BBC News. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Mao, Frances (14 July 2020). "Jenny Hocking: The Australian historian who took on the Palace and won". BBC News. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Twomey, Anne (14 July 2020). "'Palace letters' show the queen did not advise, or encourage, Kerr to sack Whitlam government". The Conversation. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
• Wallace, Chris (14 July 2020). "'Palace letters' reveal the palace's fingerprints on the dismissal of the Whitlam government". The Conversation. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

15 July 2020

• Murphy, Katharine; Knaus, Christopher; Karp, Paul (15 July 2020). "John Kerr complained to Buckingham Palace of Gough Whitlam's 'malice' after dismissal". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Davies, Caroline (15 July 2020). "Australian papers reveal Queen's thoughts on Charles as governor-general". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Murphy, Katharine (15 July 2020). "The palace letters amount to an act of interference in Australian democracy". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Davies, Caroline; Knaus, Christopher (15 July 2020). "Words between Queen and PMs should remain private, palace says". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Hartcher, Peter (15 July 2020). "History is offering us a lesson - beware the goodwill of future opposition leaders". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Meade, Amanda (15 July 2020). "'This monstrous attack': palace letters castigate Australian journalists". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Wright, Shane (15 July 2020). "A governor-general's life is 'certainly not dull'". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Shields, Bevan (15 July 2020). "Prince Charles, the 5000-hectare Australian property and the secret Canberra meeting". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Wright, Shane (15 July 2020). "A governor-general's life is 'certainly not dull'". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
• Bramston, Troy; Kelly, Paul (15 July 2020). "In Kerr's Words". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Bramston, Troy (15 July 2020). "Madcap conspiracy theory debunked". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• "Putting to rest wild ghosts and myths of the Dismissal". The Australian. 15 July 2020. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Bagaric, Mirko (15 July 2020). "Brave judgment followed the law". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite

16 July 2020

• Garnaut, Ross (16 July 2020). "'Ring Buckingham Palace': a recollection from the Whitlam dismissal". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
• Tedeschi, Mark (16 July 2020). "Whitlam, Kerr and the chief justice ... and the desperation of powers". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
• Kelly, Paul (16 July 2020). "Inept anti-monarchists have royally lost the plot". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Caisley, Olivia (16 July 2020). "Palace blasted for 'misleading' nation". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite

17 July 2020

• Hocking, Jenny (17 July 2020). "Letters of an insecure and indiscreet John Kerr make a mockery of the claim that the Queen played 'no part'". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 July 2020.
• Bramston, Troy (17 July 2020). "Palace would have urged against dismissal: Queen's top aide". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Sexton, Michael (17 July 2020). "Kerr schemed in secret and lost his chance to be redeemed by history". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite

18 July 2020

• Henderson, Gerard (18 July 2020). "Dismissal 'bombshell' is nothing more than a fizzer". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Kelly, Paul; Bramston, Troy (18 July 2020). "Letters stir up ill-founded palace intrigue". The Australian. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) paysite
• Middleton, Karen (18–24 July 2020). "Archives searching for missing 'palace letters'". The Saturday Paper. Retrieved 23 August 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) paysite

19 July 2020

• FitzSimons, Peter (19 July 2020). "Queen's man held Kerr's hand down the path to pulling the trigger on Whitlam". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 July 2020.

12 August 2020

• Partlett, Will (12 August 2020). "The Constitutional Historiography of the Palace Letters". AUSPUBLAW. Retrieved 12 August 2020.

23 August 2020

• Hocking, Jenny (23 August 2020). "The Palace Letters – in conversation with Jenny Hocking (video)". Pearls and Irritations. Retrieved 23 August 2020.

Books forthcoming: 3 November 2020

• Hocking, Jenny (2020). The Palace Letters: The Queen, the Governor-General, and the plot to dismiss Gough Whitlam. Melbourne: Scribe. ISBN 9781922310248.
• Kelly, Paul; Bramston, Troy (2020). The Truth of the Palace Letters: Deceit, Ambush and Dismissal in 1975. Melbourne: Melbourne U.P. (Boomerang Books). ISBN 9780522877557.

See also:  Boseley, Matilda (24 October 2020). "Prince Charles's letter to John Kerr reportedly endorsing sacking of Whitlam condemned". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 October 2020. Refers to articles in The Australian (paywalled):

• Kelly, Paul; Bramston, Troy (24 October 2020). "A Red-Letter Day". The Australian.
• Commentary (24 October 2020). "Historic nugget casts new light on our greatest crisis". The Australian.

This letter (in the book by Kelly and Bramston) raises at least three issues: (1) why this letter was not in the original Palace Letters collection; (2) what else may have been omitted from that collection, by error or design; and (3) Charles's suitability and/or acceptability as King of Australia. The book by Kelly and Bramston will also reproduce a lengthy reflection by Kerr on his close relationship with Charles.

Now?

Can we reassess the status of the article now that the letters have been released, and they don't seem to have any earth-shattering information?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)