This exchange is getting messey on screen - I will extract the few slightly
more substantial comments that John Briggs has finally made:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6DdBi.39537$S91.8644@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
I don't guess about things I can't know or establish by deduction.
Churchill was a crafty operator. George VI and Kennedy were brought
togther in extraordinary circumstances and something extraordinary
resulted. Trying to pretend to knowledge without evidence, one way or
the other, is wild. As I have said before, I don't know when the
recorded account of the event by an eye-witness will be available to
historians, nor do I know what contemporary records are still
withheld, but I'm perfectly content to wait on this. Making
dismissive one-line responses is no way to debate any point: since
you believe this to be wrong and will offer no rationale except your
categorical say-so, there is no value in a discussion.
Well, you are prudently not offering your "evidence" to public scrutiny
(and derision.)
I have reported the gist of what I was told, whereas you have "prudently"
not given any rationale for dismissing this: all you keep repeating is your
consideration for deciding that a chain of events _should_ not have
happened, while offering none to the effect that it _could_ not have
happened. You misrepresent these as the same, while logically they are as
different as human beings are from ideals. If you wanted a phrase to
characterise the history of the British monarchy, you wouldn't go far wrong
with "How the rules were made and how they were broken".
At the same time you patently knew nothing about the personal life and
character of George VI, when you suggested I might have him confised with
his own father. The rages of Geoge VI are a matter of public record, and his
implacability towards people who had offended him is also not open to
debate: just recall the instance of his own elder brother, forced to live
abroad largely due to the humiliation that his wife would not be received at
court or accorded his rank of "Royal Highness" by the king. This was not on
advice from ministers. As for sovereigns acting without such advice, the
case of Edward VIII (who unlike his younger brother George VI had been
trained in kingcraft) is apposite: just a few years before 1940 he had
publicly declared "Something must be done", without reference to his
ministers who were appalled at this breach of propriety. Things simply don't
always happen as they should, in royal minds and in royal emotions that can
get out of control.
Now to the specific background: the account I was given came from a person I
have no reason to distrust (but also had no cause to cross-examine) who was
present when Kennedy gave offense to George VI, and arranged for the king to
be called out of the room in order to avoid to the explosion of anger that
was evidently impending. What happened elsewhere afterwards could only be
described to me at a remove, from hearsay and long after George VI was dead,
and this may be far from the full story, as I have suggested. The king might
have had prior discussions with Churchill, or he might have immediately
called him at 10 Downing Street before doing anything else. The conversation
as reported would certainly have had to be made known by the king to his
prime minister sooner rather than later. Then WSC might have spoken to
Roosevelt before the king did, or not - you can't know, I can't know, and my
informant may never have known either. But the version I heard is that
George VI personally spoke to FDR, and events unfolded subsequently in line
with his wishes - Kennedy left the UK, quickly, and a new ambassador was
sent from the USA.
You can deride this to your heart's content, it will make no difference to
what did or did not happen, could or should not have happened, nearly 70
years ago.
<snip>
If you seriously believe that everything is invariably done in the
most prim & proper way in the exercise of power and diplomacy, you
are in for some huge surprises as - or if - you ever begin to learn
how the world actually works.
Actually, it is surprising how much is.
No, this is _not_ surprising at all to anyone with a grain of sense and
familiarity with the inglorious history of unimaginative diplomacy - my
point is that it is not invariable, not everything.
<snip>
Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He
knew perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in
the UK or in Australia.
I was not "blathering", you are. Whitlam knew perfectly well that the
governor-general could withdraw his commission: that possibility was
part of the discussion at the time, before it happened, and has been
acknowledged consistently since.
The situation is as I stated. If Whitlam had thought that there was the
remotest chance of Kerr having the power to sack him he would have had
Kerr replaced. In fact, you have it exactly the wrong way round - Kerr
was worried that Whitlam would sack him, whereas Whitlam did not seriously
consider the reverse possibility. In any case, he thought he had that
covered by refusing Kerr's request to consult the (hostile) Chief Justice.
I am afraid you have this wrong, and you have the opportunity to check from
published accounts. Whitlam knew that Kerr had the power to dismiss him,
that is evident from his acceptance of the fact once it occurred - he went
back to the Lodge and had lunch, then went into the house of
representatives, not to the chambers of his lawyer. He didn't think in
advance that Kerr would resort to using the power, but he didn't doubt its
reality.
He didn't think Kerr would go so far
as to do it, but that is beside the point as to whether or not he had
the power. The _only_ reason the queen of Australia didn't have it
equally is becasue she had appointed a representative to exercise the
plenitude of sovereign power - absent him, she could in theory have
done the same deed herself, even in the same devious way, with the
same practical outcome.
No, she doesn't have that power. ("As we understand the situation here,
the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the
Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the
Queen of Australia.")
That is right, and consistent with what I said in the first place. However,
the point you are missing is what would she have done if Whitlam had phoned
Buckingham palace - as he has acknowledged he contemplated - asking her to
sack Sir John Kerr as governor-general: we know that she would have been
advised by her private secretary to defer compliance. She has the right to
be informed, comprehensively, and to warn - to fulfil this duty, she has the
right to assess a situation before complying with advice from a minister. In
this case, Whitlam did not have a nominee ready to recommend to her for
appointment in Kerr's place: the role and reserve powers of the
governor-general would then have passed immediately to the senior state
governor (unlesss perhaps the queen was bizarrely advised to appoint herself
or her private secretary to the office, temporarily, on the spot). Whitlam
did not know how that official would act, nor did the queen: the crisis
might have continued and spun out of the prime minister's control, since
state governors are not appointed at his pleasure. She would have been
obliged to consider the outcome and to confer about any apprehensions with
the prime minister before acting as - hypothetically - asked.
<snip>
George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign,
reserve or otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential
power over HIS ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he
would have nothing further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to
keep Kennedy in the post, I presume he would have stayed in the UK,
absurdly, as persona non grata in the court to which he was
accredited.
I would be intrigued to learn about this "court" of which you speak.
The court of St James, the monarch's official residence in London, to which
all ambassadors to the UK are accredited. They take up their posts on
presenting their credentials to the head of state, not to the prime
minister - embassies are a matter of state and not only of government. The
disparity between Churchill and Roosevelt in this respect was one of the
reasons that the former, especially early on in his prime ministership,
relied on George VI for some communications with the president.
One small amendment to my statement above: to be as pedantic as John Briggs
may require to understand, I should have written "George VI was not
purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign, reserve or otherwise, beyond
the power of speech, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential power over
HIS ambassadorial appointee".
Peter Stewart