The Delusional Duke and the Travesty that is Ignorance.

📸 Channel Seven 7 News , Australia

For decades since 1975, the events of that year remain embedded within the soul of every Australian, conservative and not. The reasons why the Dismissal happened have been consigned to what can only be termed as behind the wings, in the dark and unspoken. What DOES remain is one simple fact , that the Governor General, Sir John Kerr sacked a duly elected Prime Minister , Gough Whitlam. THAT is what has gone down in Australian folklore.

In 1975 Gough Whitlam the leader of the Australian Labor party became embroiled in what can only be termed as a governmental existential crisis with the Liberal opposition led by Malcolm Fraser.

The House of Representatives also known as the Lower House of Parliament was controlled by the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor Party , but the Liberal party, in opposition under Malcolm Fraser controlled the Upper House.

To put it simply, via use of the majority in the Senate , Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal party blocked various budget measures leading the government essentially unable to meet the costs to sustain public servants and public service. As explained most simply on Wikipedia,

Fraser’s opposition & senate control was used to

“defer passage of appropriation bills needed to finance government expenditure which had already been passed by the House of Representatives. Fraser and the Opposition stated that they would continue to block supply in the Senate unless Whitlam called a fresh election for the House of Representatives, and urged Kerr, who had been appointed governor-general on Whitlam's advice in July 1974, to dismiss Whitlam unless he acceded to their demand. Whitlam believed that Kerr would not dismiss him as prime minister, and Kerr did nothing to make Whitlam believe that he might be dismissed” ( Wikipedia )

When Sir John Kerr resigned on July 14 , 1977, Gough Whitlam responded with

"How fitting that the last of the Bourbons should bow out on Bastille Day". ( Gough Whitlam, 1991 )

Kerr paid dearly for what many Australians see as his treachery and his voltaface to the ordinary working class Australian. His death in 1991 was not even publicly announced until after he was buried.

As Gough Whitlam declared that day, the day of the Dismissal on the steps of Parliament House ,

“ Well may we say 'God Save the Queen' – because nothing will save the Governor-General" (Gough Whitlam November 11 ,1975 )

Many years after the Dismissal both Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser reached a state of camaraderie as they both threw their weight behind the 1999 Referendum for a Republic. The no’s did win by a small margin and the votes were not so much against a Republic but, as noted by the Independent Newspaper at the time , the manner in which it would be set up.

“The dispute is about the method of choosing a president; many republicans believe that the head of state should be directly elected by the people, and substantial numbers of them plan to join forces with the monarchists to vote "no". The Independent too notes the obvious fellowship at the time between the two previous opponents , as it writes “But the most remarkable display of unity has been that of Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, key players in a constitutional crisis that has great resonance today as Australia ponders whether to cut the umbilical cord with the mother country. “

( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australia-poised-to-say-no-to-republican-dream-5382696.html )

Do not be fooled into the belief that the voices supporting an Australian Republic belong only to the traditional left, Labor and Greens. Indeed notable Liberal ( conservative ) Prime Ministers have been great supporters of an Australian Republic , such as Malcolm Fraser and Malcom Turnbull. It is a very fine silk cord that continues to connect Australia to the Motherland in 2026 and nothing will shred it faster than appointing someone like Harry Sussex aka Mountbatten-Windsor to such an influential position in Australia , as that of Governor General. It smacks of paternalistic colonialism. I am here to tell you that WE WILL NOT tolerate it! Not for one second.

1. Australian Only Appointments: Before 1965, almost all Governors-General were British aristocrats (Lords, Dukes, etc ) sent from London. With the election of the Whitlam government Australians decided that ONLY Australian citizens should attain the position.

2. Removing The Titles: Gough Whitlam strongly believed Australia should have its own identity. He stopped recommending Australians for British imperial honours during his tenure.

3. Sir John Kerr’s background : Sir John Kerr was a working-class Australian,he was not a British aristocrat. He was knighted under a different system before Whitlam took over. After Kerr used his Governor General status and Reserve Powers to sack Whitlam, the public was absolutely incandescent, that an individual who had not been elected to office could overthrow a government chosen by the people. The role of the Governor General was soon seen as polarising, controversial and rather dangerous to the democratic process. as a result Australia decided to strip away any royal elitism from the office.

Perhaps the public opinion of many Australians was best summed up by the current Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last year when he stated at the 50th Anniversary of the Dismissal , when he stated the following,

“Gough Whitlam’s dismissal was not a constitutional crisis but “a calculated plot” to remove a democratically elected government via partisan ambush, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, says. Reflecting ahead of Tuesday’s 50th anniversary of governor general Sir John Kerr’s move to dismiss the Labor government on 11 November 1975, Albanese used a speech at Old Parliament House to lash the then opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, accusing the Coalition of forming government without any “legitimate pretext”. “The opposition orchestrated a parliamentary gridlock over the budget and then secretly prevailed upon the governor general to break it, by sacking the prime minister,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/10/gough-whitlams-dismissal-a-calculated-plot-to-remove-elected-government-via-partisan-ambush-pm-says

“Albanese said Australia’s 21st prime minister had a mistaken but unshakeable belief that Kerr would do the right thing to resolve the deadlock over the stalled budget bills.” Instead, Kerr sought advice from Barwick and fellow high court justice Anthony Mason and hinted to Fraser that he was prepared to use the constitution’s reserve powers to dismiss the government.” “The dismissal should not overshadow Whitlam’s policy achievements, Albanese said, citing the creation of Medibank, free university education, the end of the White Australia policy, the Racial Discrimination Act, and diplomatic relations with China.”

(https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/10/gough-whitlams-dismissal-a-calculated-plot-to-remove-elected-government-via-partisan-ambush-pm-says )

Gough Whitlam in fact oversaw many, many welfare reforms , including the Single Mother’s Benefit on July 3 , 1973. Before this date unmarried single mothers had very little support , in a world where corporate employees were mainly men and often these women were given little choice but to give their children up for adoption.

Indeed, Gough Whitlam had always had the welfare of women , women’s equality and rights at the fore of his political ideology. His wife Margaret is literally venerated , by most Australian women as a staunch reformer and advocate for women.

“The Whitlam Government sought to ensure that workplace pay and conditions for women were in keeping with the principles of social equality and justice that guided the Government’s agenda. The Whitlam Government also acted to remove discrimination and injustice against women in other areas, and to improve the basis of equality upon which women could participate in society.”

( www.whitlam.org/whitlam-legacy-womens-rights )

So suffice to say that Gough Whitlam has always held a very special place in the heart of most Australians.

So, you can all IMAGINE my reaction when it came to my notice that Harry Sussex also known as Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, has shared another delusional half baked idea. Apparently, and I do say this with insouciance, and thus to be taken with a grain of salt, the Duke of delusions is eyeing a role where he can represent the United Kingdom and the Crown in Australia.

The Governor-General’s role holds specific constitutional abilities known as “reserve powers”. They are SUPPOSED to be used as a safety net for extreme emergencies. It allows the Governor General to act completely independently and even against the advice of the Prime Minister.

( www.moadoph.gov.au )

Granted, the Governor General can only step in and dismiss a PM under specific conditions, such as :

• If the Prime Minister loses the support of the majority of the House of Representatives but refuses to resign, the GG can remove them. ( www.moadoph.gov.au )

• Running Out of Money (This is what happened in 1975 ),If the Senate blocks the government’s budget (called the “supply”) and the Prime Minister refuses to call an election or step down, the Governor General can fire them to break the deadlock. ( www.peo.gov.au )

• If the Prime Minister or the government persistently violates the constitution or breaks the law, the Governor General has the power to fire them. ( www.moadoph.gov.au )

  However, Australia is no longer the repository of aristocratic British detritus. Prince Harry needs to be reminded of this fact, it is not 1812 no matter how much he acts like it .

  The Prime Minister technically has the power to recommend a future Governor General to the King . Choosing a British royal today would not only be political suicide but it would also go against the 1965 breakaway model. It would trigger a massive public backlash and fray that fragile cord still connecting Australia with the United Kingdom and the British monarchy.

  🇦🇺 Breaking the “Australian Citizen” Tradition

  Australia has not had a British Governor-General since Lord De L’Isle stepped down in 1965.

  For over 60 years, the two major political parties in the country have been in firm agreement that the Governor-General must be an Australian citizen.

  Appointing a British royal will be regressing as a country , a step back into colonial history. As an Australian I would see this as an insult to all Australians and to my country.

  🏛️ The Trigger of 1975

  It was clearly and loudly brought home to the people during the 1975 dismissal that the Governor-General holds constitutional power. The Governor General can can sack a Prime Minister and dissolve Parliament.

  Since 1975 Australians have only tolerated this power because the Governor-General is seen as something akin to a cricket umpire. An independent arbitrer of political justice, the role seen as an advocate for the people , with no personal gain.

  Placing Harry who is a Prince of the British royal family in that position is utterly ludicrous and indeed it would be unacceptable for him to hold such power. I believe that if a royal, any royal was to be appointed to that position it would end the monarchy in Australia overnight.

  ⚡ The Republican Movement Power Surge

  The appointment of a royal Governor General would unite the Australian public and remove any ambivalence among the fence sitters, which in polls are between 22 to 29 %. Since 1999 the republic debate has been in a limbo or hiatus mainly because Australian leaders have not presented a working republic model to the satisfaction of the people.

  Australian support for transitioning to a republic, which sits at around 43%. (https://macaubusiness.com/australian-pm-plays-down-chance-of-referendum-on-monarchy/)

  (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/republic-support-surges-to-record-level-but-we-still-like-king-charles-despite-andrew-furore-20251111-p5nec8.html )

  It is true that individual royals like King Charles and Prince William have strong approval ratings in Australia, the situation can become rather volatile if there is any whiff of colonialism and paternalism, in my humble opinion.

  The king in fact, at this point has a stronger approval rating than the Australian Prime Minister at 50%. I doubt very much that he has any intention to put this in jeopardy. (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/guardian-essential-poll-king-charles-job-approval-rating-albanese-dutton )

  So essentially , at this point Australians remain in a stalemate on whether to keep the royal institution for the long term or not. It is essentially all of the fence sitters which will decide on which way the Republic dice will fall.

  ( https://demosau.com/news/republic-referendum/) .

  📊 Current Polling Overview

  “Recent data shows that neither side holds a commanding majority. The undecided voters hold the power to tip the scales.” As outlined below .

  ( https://macaubusiness.com/australian-pm-plays-down-chance-of-referendum-on-monarchy/ )

• Poll Type / Source For a Republic in Australia

  Resolve Political Monitor

  28% retain the Monarchy

  43% move to republic

  29% undecided

  YouGov Index

  43% retain the monarchy

  37% move to the republic

  20% undecided

  Daily Telegraph Poll

  45% retain the monarchy

  33% move to the republic

  22% undecided

  Appointing a British royal Prince would swiftly change that and create an impetus for political leaders and bodies to fast track an acceptable model. To add, it would give republicans the powerful, unifying argument that they have been searching for and grasping at for decades. In my opinion it would absolutely have the fence sitters jump into the Republic square. Like a game of hopscotch there would be no turning back.

  Even for Australians who like me support Prince William and see themselves as royalists, a line in the sand will have been crossed. There is a VAST difference between respecting the royal family in the United Kingdom and allowing one of them , indeed, allowing the most vexatious, polarising and self entitled pompous one of the the family to be able to wield immense political power in Australia and to be involved in any constitutional role in Canberra.

  For Royalists it would absolutely be seen as not only Harry is being given a position of great power over Australians but that he is being encouraged to establish the second royal court that he so much wants, to the detriment of Prince William. An encouragement that will be seen by Royalists as coming directly from Buckingham Palace , Westminster and Canberra.

  This would leave Royalists little choice but to advocate for his IMMEDIATE removal, and to destabilise what would be an egregious ,de facto royal court, this could only be done by totally breaking away and finally agreeing to a Republic and as a result losing that part of our identity that makes us Australian.

  Not only that, but to ensure a full constitutional removal of such a figure would, in my opinion also include a total exit from the Commonwealth, and this would start an exodus and totally dismantle Queen Elizabeth’s life work.

  King Charles unlike many in this saga, is very well versed in history , a voracious reader and scholar. So, I am sure that he is well aware of this and I personally do not believe that he would ever place the Monarchy and most importantly the Commonwealth in such danger. My reaction and response mirrors that of other Australians with whom I have discussed this and it perfectly highlights the existential threat that someone like Harry places not only toward the monarchy but also the Commonwealth.

  It is a sad indictment of the modern education system that pays so very little heed to Modern European and Western History . It is also completely maddening to come across Australian journalists like Chloe Walker fan girling over such a ludicrous headline as this “ ‘Reinvent the monarchy’: Prince Harry’s surprising Australia plan revealed as Duke searches for a path back into royal life” continuing on with this headline Ms Walker totally ignores a number of pertinent points, such as the fact that Australia in 2026 is not Barbados in 1940 , we are not in the midst of a world war and Harry is not a King who had abdicated a throne, relinquished a crown and still enjoyed a modicum of support from various entities, nefarious as they may have been, the Duke of Windsor was seen by the enemy as a valuable and useful asset if cut totally loose by the allies. There is almost zero resemblance in my opinion between Edward VIII, once the Prince of Wales and Harry Mountbatten-Windsor , the only thing that they have in common is that they both married older divorced American women.

  “ The source claimed Harry has looked to history for inspiration, pointing to the Duke of Windsor- formerly King Edward VIII- who was appointed Governor of the Bahamas in 1940 after abdicating the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite.”

  The article continues rambling on about Harry’s utterly offensive and ignorant idea because “Harry thinks there's a creative compromise," the source said.”

  ( https://www.news24.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/reinvent-the-monarchy-prince-harrys-surprising-australia-plan-revealed-as-duke-searches-for-a-path-back-into-royal-life/news-story/0928991fbc40af45acd2e8c51afbdca7 )

  Strangely, for an Australian journalist one would think that the article would have at least touched on the consequences that such an appointment would bring . More proof that Sussex PR considers no one , not even nations are considered as far as the Sussexes and their pomposity , condescension and nepotistic self entitlement is concerned.

  For Australian royalists, Prince William represents stability, tradition and duty, unbending stoicism and strength of character. When he will ascend the throne, as King we believe that the future of the Commonwealth will be in safe hands and that the Legacy of our great late monarch, Queen Elizabeth will continue. Supporting him I believe is about keeping a well established system of governance that for many of us feels reliable and safe.

  

  📸 Getty

  Giving Prince Harry any role at all not only in Australia but in every Commonwealth country would be like bringing Hollywood celebrity culture and public family feuds directly into individual countries’ governance , and as with Australia, that would often be in the highest of constitutional offices.

  The reality for the Royal Family is that for Australia to remain a monarchy, it is not enough to just exist, it is no longer enough to be just seen. More than that is expected , with great privilege comes great obligation toward the people who afford you that privilege and it is because of this that individual royals must behave in a manner that earns the respect of all Australians. For once that respect is lost it will never be regained.

  𝚃𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚔 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚕𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚖𝚢 𝚑𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝚖𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜

  𝑀𝑦 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑠 100 % 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑. 𝐼𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑦’𝑠 𝑇𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑇𝑖𝑒𝑟.( 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑠 )

  𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 than the price of a fancy tea 🫖🧁☕️🍮𝑗𝑜𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑝 , 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 , 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 . 𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 .

  you aren’t just getting extra content—you’re directly enabling the hours of research it takes to bring you these stories every week.

  Thank you for being part of my journey whether you are a visitor here , subscribing for free or have joined as a paid subscriber . I remain as always humbled by all who read on

  If you would like to help my work but don’t want to subscribe consider shouting me a fluffy Cappucino, No pressure , no fluff ☕️💕🥐

  Grateful Coffee Lover ☕️💕☕️