Why Prince Charles Rejected Being Governor of Victoria

While there is often speculation about why Prince Charles (as he then was) did not become Governor-General of Australia, this video, relying on British Government files, explains how he was once sounded out by the Cain Labor Government to be Governor of Victoria in 1985.
It sets out the context in which this occurred, which includes the negotiation of the Australia Acts and the forced resignation of the Governor of Victoria, Sir Brian Murray. It then explains the reasons why the British Government and Prince Charles rejected the proposal, and sought to quash it before any formal advice was given.

[@garyholtzman5155]

What a fascinating story! Thank you for taking us through the ins and outs of it, Professor.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. It was just one of the many odd things found by serendipity when researching other things.

[@avayer849]

All these videos are fascinating. I've learnt so much. Thank you!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm very glad you have found them useful.

[@tonybarry5101]

An excellent video, Prof. Twomey ! Raised a couple of real laughs at the "bordering on lunacy" comment. It also outlines just how tight the thread the royals must walk to maintain some semblance of neutrality amidst the warring factions ... and the duplicity of Cain in seeking two years of guaranteed Supply by the admission of Charles to the Governorship. I mean, that's the point of Supply - that the government should **not** be given any guarantees, to encourage restraint and propriety in managing the public purse.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Normally the position of Governor is relatively easy to carry on with complete neutrality, but given the tensions in Victoria at the time after the forced resignation of Sir Brian Murray, it was very sensible to avoid placing Prince Charles there.

[@noelleggett5368]

Prof. Twomey, please let us know (in the channel) when your updated edition of The Chameleon Crown is available (perhaps for pre-orders). Many of us will be keen, I’m sure. I’d have thought that convention would have been a major consideration (if not bearing legal status) in 1985. The Scullin Labor government appointed (advised the monarch to appoint) an Australian, Sir Isaac Issacs, as Governor-General in 1931, attempting to establish a new convention. In the following few decades, four out of six governors-general were chosen from British royalty/nobility. The highest ranked was (George VI) the king’s younger brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who served at the close of WWII (1945-47). Eventually, certainly since 1965, successive Commonwealth and state governments have preferred to appoint Australians to vice-regal positions. The last non-Australian Governor of Victoria was Sir Rohan Delacombe (1963-74). I accept that by 1985, Victoria was fairly new to the game, having enjoyed only three Australian governors by that stage. (Lord Huntingfield, British to the bootstraps, was at least born in Queensland.) But it seems very peculiar that John Cain Jr, of all people, could not find a single senior Victorian soldier, judge, social advocate or even cleric, who would be a more universally accepted governor than the Prince of Wales. The only Prince of Wales that I’m aware of who ever became a colonial governor was Prince Henry’s eldest brother and King Charles’s great-uncle, the Duke of Windsor (formerly Prince of Wales and King Edward VIII), whom Churchill appointed Governor of the Bahamas at the height of WWI in 1940 - partly as a consolation prize, perhaps, but mainly to get rid of him. 😊 I can understand that after Prince Alfred’s visit in 1868, the Royal family would have been reluctant to send the heir to the throne on an extended visit to Australia. Prince Charles was lucky enough to survive seven months of high school in Geelong. 😄

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, I will certainly let viewers know when a new edition of the Chameleon Crown emerges. I just have to find time to write a couple of new chapters for it. I suspect John Cain was more interested in having a reprieve from supply threats in the upper House and saw Prince Charles as an opportunity to get the Opposition to behave.

[@ronaldmccallum2111]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Personally, I think that Members of the Royal Family (Royal Styled and Titled) and other close relatives of The Sovereign should stay FAR AWAY from any Office of State as an Official and Constitutional Representative of The Sovereign as they could create a controversy with the exercise of Reserve Powers.

[@johnnzboy]

"Something for Netflix perhaps." Very droll, Prof Twomey.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I gather Netflix is not averse to a little alternative history.

[@Matlockization]

King Charles the 3rd, is the only royal (as far as I can tell) who is the most Australian of any of the royals.

[@truetory6231]

Australia’s federal system is rather curious; they were trying to implement the American concept of state sovereignty separate from the federal government which differs from Canadian federal system where the sovereignty of the provinces is tied to the sovereignty of the federal government itself. Hence Australian states have a “direct” relationship with the crown in a way that Canadian provinces do not given the relationship is indirect and passes through the federal government. Australia by separating state sovereignty from federal sovereignty doesn’t really work well in a system where there is in fact only one sovereign monarch. Had it a different monarch for each state similar to Malaysia then such system would be more understandable but in Australia’s case it’s just bizarre.

[@Wog68]

Listen carefully what she is saying here. The incident happened before 1986. Those things changed with australia act 1986.

[@crazyham]

Wow, I had no idea this happened.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

As far as I know, it was never made public. I just came across the file accidentally while doing other research.

[@AdamKarmona]

...well may we say God save the King.

[@shangyien]

Perhaps he could become Governor of Victoria now and we could eliminate a whole level of bureaucracy. After all, with modern communications there is no longer a need for a viceroy when you could have an actual sovereign. Are we being short changed? That's my shilling's worth.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm not sure what what you mean about eliminating a level of bureaucracy. The Governor has a very small office, which would still be needed to support whoever fills the role, including the King, if he did so.

[@shangyien]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I hope he fills it, then we'll have the full quid rather than a half sovereign.

[@cesargodoy2920]

I wouldnt be suprised if some of the smaller realms hadnt considered simallar as a pubilicty stunt'"Tuvlau?"Prince Willams country" "oh yeah" (he wanted to be GG of Australia at least according to the tabloids) One of the proposals during "megexit "was for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to be royals in residence for a commonwealth country. Would this by itself cause any consitutional difficulties? The GG of New Zealand said the kiwi goverment was ok with the idea. and sorry for all the comments today,I got some mathwork and needed some background noise.

[@mindi2050]

I doubt Prince William is looking for a job as governor-general. I sometimes wonder if he even wants to be Prince of Wales.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I doubt it is an attractive proposition for any member of the royal family, as they probably don't want to live out in the colonies. Moreover, there would be even greater media scrutiny and obligations not to step a foot wrong - so not so attractive if you are trying to flee those pressures.

[@garyholtzman5155]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 It is presumably too late in the day now to consider it, Professor, but since we are in the realm of wild proposals bordering on lunacy, do you think that 30 or 40 years ago a compromise solution in the Republic v. Monarchy debate might have been to invite a junior member of the Royal Family, one of the Queen's younger children or a Gloucester or Kent, to Australia not as Governor-General but as Prince/ss Regent and heir/ess apparent to the Australian throne in succession to Elizabeth II? There would have been no need to figure out a system for choosing a president, no need to depose a popular queen, and there could have been a "resident for monarch." If the Crown is divisible, is it constitutionally possible - or possible in public debate - to decouple the issue of the monarchy from the identity of the monarch?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@garyholtzman5155 It would depend upon how a court would interpret covering clause 2 of the Constitution and the oath in the Schedule to the Constitution. Covering clause 2 says that provisions in the Constitution Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. A note to the oath in the Schedule refers to the 'name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' - which Kingdom no longer exists as such. So far, there has been no need to face the question, because the King of Australia is also the King of the United Kingdom. But splitting the two would likely lead to a legal challenge, leaving it a matter for a court to decide how liberal or strict it would be in its interpretation.

[@dod4004]

​@@constitutionalclarion1901the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland still exists. All that happened was a change of name in an act of parliament. The act didn't say anything like 'dissolve'. I blame Wikipedia for giving a widespread impression that countries cease to exist just because they change their name.

[@nightowldickson]

There are so many good reasons why this would have been a terrible idea, surprised someone even thought of it in the first place!

[@Wog68]

It was a political stunt or ignorance of a desperate politician trying to survive impending political crisis. British royals have limited powers. Being a governor or governor general of a commonwealth, dominion and British overseas territories is not one of them. In British dependency thay do have anyway such as in Channel Islands or Isle of Man.

[@TomHasVideo]

Hi Anne, Section 42 of the Constitution states, "every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorized by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution." Does this mean the Governor-General, and therefore the executive government, has the power to refuse the seating of an elected member of parliament? Thanks!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No - it just means that the Senator or Member must take the oath or make the affirmation before sitting and voting as a Senator or Member. The oath can be taken before someone else - sometimes a High Court judge or sometimes the presiding officer.

[@Wog68]

⁠I think technically it does. After all anyone working within the institution responsible to govern on behalf of sovereign state must have allegiance to the state by taking oath and affirmation, be that individual be elected official or selected official appointed by civil services.

[@mountbatten2222]

It´s unthinkable for an heir to the crown to take on such a position as GG of Victoria, Australia ! But it shows how difficult it is to find ´honorable´people for such a position ! The Republicans should think about this, they believe presidents grow on trees and they just have to pick the ripe ones

[@MenaceGallagher]

I don't think thats a reasonable characterization of Republican sentiment. I doubt anyone, Republican or otherwise is under any illusions about how uncommon trustworthy political leaders are, they just dont consider the Crown to be any more worthy of trust.

[@noahlenten8360]

the average crackhead or homeless guy is more honorable than king charles or 90% of the royal family

[@montecarlo1651]

And the States don't have GGs, they have Governors.

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks.

[@doggyteabreaks9362]

Hmm...are we not so sure that deep down Prince Charles would have LOVED to have been Governor of Victoria (he had a boarding school stint at Timbertop in that same state as a teen, remember) & have a practise run at being a Head of State? Are we so sure he declined the proposal to be Victorian Governor, just to save face when presented with the absurdity of this proposition? Cos why would there just happen to also be an informal proposal for him to become the Australian Governor General at the same time, when it was supposedly the Victorian Government or John Cain who had proposed for him to be Governor of Victoria? Is this not in stark contrast to how Prince Charles was voted in by the Commonwealth countries into the figurehead role of Head of the Commonwealth, prior to the passing of QE2? All opinion & speculation only

[@Wog68]

He can’t be because system of UK prohibit it, where powers of royals are restricted over times (starting from time of Magna Carta)..

[@jsma9999]

The book "Commeran Crown" will be available in audiobook, as for good read while walking or other things

[@noelleggett5368]

Prof. Twomey, in line with stories about the constitutional ‘arrangements’ between the UK and Australia, perhaps you’d like to add to the list of future posts, the story of Sir Benjamin Boothby. Did he start the ball rolling in 1857, forcing the British and various Australian governments to disentangle themselves and establish principles of ‘responsible government’ for self-governing colonies? And for further related posts… How did the resulting statutes (in Australia and Britain) eventually influence/inform the Statute of Westminster (1931)? And why did it take yet another 55 years for Australia to finally ‘cut the apron strings’?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. Yes, Boothby was quite an interesting character! A couple of viewers have asked about him, so I'll add him to the list. As for the application of the Statute of Westminster to Australia and its failure to cover the States, I've written a lot about that in both the Chameleon Crown and my book on the Australia Acts. I'll also add it to the list - but maybe wait until the new edition of the Chameleon comes out.

[@andrewjones3455]

Does this mean that prior to the Australia Acts, an Australian state could have declared itself a republic on its own (while otherwise maintaining its normal relationship to the commonwealth)? Or conversely if Australia had become a republic, a state could have maintained a separate relationship with the British crown? Would any of this be possible today?

[@noelleggett5368]

Yes, and maybe.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I keep being asked about this, so I will do a couple of videos about it soon.

[@seanlander9321]

No.

[@girish2001]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I look forward to this video. My layman's interpretation of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states at that time was that each state had its own Crown and therefore could maintain a personal union with the monarch of the United Kingdom even while the Commonwealth adopted a republican form of governance. It would be similar in some ways to the EU effectively having a republican form of government (it has presidents for almost all its organisations) while including multiple monarchies. One of the members of the Swiss Confederation in the 1800s was a monarchy (Principality of Neuchatel) while the others were republics. So there is definitely historic precedence, although not in the British/Commonwealth heritage.

[@ronaldmccallum2111]

@@girish2001 "My layman's interpretation of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states at that time was that each state had its own Crown and therefore could maintain a personal union with the monarch of the United Kingdom even while the Commonwealth adopted a republican form of governance." Professor Anne Twomey actually discusses this in the Question and Answer Session during this presentation at Parliament House: www.aph.gov.au/senate/~/~/link.aspx?_id=76D508CC96314F19A371171C7A270930&_z=z

[@noelleggett5368]

It was only in 1984 that (a modified version of) Advanced Australia Fair finally replaced God Save the Queen as Australia’s national anthem. The Hawke government set itself to attend to a lot of unfinished constitutional business. It was truly a watershed administration in Australian constitutional history. Sir Ninian Stephen was, by accident of history, perhaps, the perfect Governor-General to oversee the implementation and testing of the Hawke government’s wide-ranging constitutional reforms.

[@joelpearce1350]

Hi Anne I've just recently discovered your channel here on KZbin and have been delighted by your wealth of knowledge into Australian constitutional matters. I was wondering if you have produced a video on possible forms of an Australian republic, ie how a president could be elected and how a presidential election would take place. Also what role would the state and territories play in the election of a president. I'm a proud member of the Australian Republic Movement and would be fascinated to hear your perspective on the specific machinations of how an Australian republic would work. Thanks Joel

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No, I've not done any videos on the republic issue yet - but I get quite a lot of questions about it, so I will definitely do a series of videos on it in the future.

[@ronaldmccallum2111]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Professor Twomey, Maybe you could do a follow-up on your Occasional Senate Lecture Presentation that you gave in 2008: www.aph.gov.au/senate/~/~/link.aspx?_id=76D508CC96314F19A371171C7A270930&_z=z I had found it some years ago, and I have quoted it on another platform in answering the following question: "Why do the Australians still have Queen Elizabeth the 2nd as their monarch?" with the appropriate credit given. I had like how you had answered the question on the republic vis-a-vis the States. Ronald A. McCallum

[@OilBaron100]

How can we order your book Anne?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Through Federation Press - but you'll have to wait a few months, as I still have to write a couple of chapters. I'll let you know on the Clarion when the new edition is out.

[@christophergame7977]

The idea that the King should become governor or governor-general is just ridiculous, or bizarre, as Professor Twomey words it.

[@pavarangi]

Hahahaha The King when he was Prince of Wales at the time. The King cannot be the Governor or Governor General because he is the Sovereign. However, a child of the sovereign can be a Governor General of one of the realms because there is a precedence Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught seventh child and third son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert was Governor General of Canada.

[@martino2794]

@@pavarangi Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester served as Governor-General of Australia just after WWII

[@mindi2050]

​@@pavarangi I couldn't imagine any Australian PM nowadays even considering a member of the British royal family for the job of GG. The precedent has now been set for Australians only.

[@matthewrobinson2172]

I think that’s right, it is hard to imagine anyone but an Australian now taking or being offered the role, but it is indeed interesting that Prince Henry as gg in the 1940s and this idea of Charles as governor in Victoria of which I had no prior knowledge of came from labor governments. In both cases there were clear political motives.

[@brasschick4214]

There is also a huge difference in having a lower order Royal vs. The POW and his young sons living so far away from the UK. Not practical, or all that safe for the line of succession.

[@OilBaron100]

Did you go to see the King yourself today?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No - I made a video instead. But I did hear the odd loud bang - presumably a gun salute, and a hovering helicopter or two (as I live quite nearby). Bizarrely, there was also a person playing bagpipes standing on a little tender boat, who piped the occupants on board a yacht. I had a look to see if it was the King and Queen, but it seemed to be a group of men in red hats. No idea what that was all about.

[@David-e2n6t]

Looks completely different, whoever he is, he's not Charles

[@deanunio]

I think The King would like a constitutional conversation with you. I for one am reassured that we have the system we have and while we can tidy a few loose ends, I’m glad we are a constitutional parliamentary monarchy 🇦🇺

[@janeglover3118]

Good grief, i had no idea any of that was happening at the time. I was too busy focused on being a young mum to my own son. Ive never been a fan of Charles but i was very fond of Princess Di. If Charles had accepted the Vic (or Aust.) GG post, unfortunately Camilla would have quickly arrived down here too, as she would not have stayed away from Charles for that long. As Princess Di always said "there were 3 people in our marriage". RIP lovely Princess Di. 🥀

[@mindi2050]

Prince Charles apparently wanted the job of GG at one stage, when he and Diana visited in 1983. It was PM Hawke who made it clear it wasn't going to happen.

[@janeglover3118]

@@mindi2050 I'm glad it never happened.

[@mauvegreenwisteria3645]

Diana-worship is now seriously out of date. If you couldn’t see through her at the time, please now read. some of the recent biographies…

[@janeglover3118]

@mauvegreenwisteria3645 I certainly don't "worship" any imperfect human being/s, good grief. I have my own private personal reasons for being fond of Diana, which will not be changed just because you'd prefer it. Im neither swayed by nor even remotely interested in your personal opinion of her, either.

[@lukeprimon1864]

Sir Brian Murray was treated dismissally by John Cain. I have no objection to any British prince or princess being Governor of Victoria or Governor- General of Australia, except Prince Andrew. The fact is we have too many republicans and woke dud types appointed to the position. The person first of all needs to be a monarchist and second someone who can inspire and represent the Crown

[@mindi2050]

I'm hoping what you've written is satire.

[@matthewrobinson2172]

It is of course absurd that an occupant should believe in his or her office.

[@feelmehish8506]

​@@mindi2050You don't read and you can't read can you?

[@mindi2050]

@@matthewrobinson2172 Governor-General Samantha Mostyn does believe in the importance of her job. She has made it clear she is proud to be Australian and wants to be 'Governor-General for all Australians, whether their families have lived her for 60,000 years or arrived just yesterday'.

[@lukeprimon1864]

@@mindi2050 I am serious. A viceregal representative who represents his or her boss, The King should be a monarchist and secondly shouldnt be a woke lefty type of person like the current G-G

[@felixtheswiss]

Was that just an oversight in 1901 Federation

[@FionaEm]

If Charles had no problem discussing a potential Whitlam dismissal with the GG in Sep '75, I'm surprised he had any scruples about becoming Vic Governor 😅 So sick of the fawning over the monarchy. Time we grew up.

[@mindi2050]

I don't think it was so much Charles' scruples. The royal family's top priority was always their own survival. So, it sounds more like it was the Palace that dismissed the idea as a bad one, and didn't want Charles to get caught up in an awkward situation. i.e. Premier Cain wanting to solve his own problem of how to get rid of Governor Murray.

[@seanlander9321]

It’s not a matter of growing up, which is a patronising observation. The progress to a republic can only come from a bipartisan approach to a constitutional convention to rewrite our constitution and laws. It’s simply baffling that none of the parties have the capacity for a republic as a component of their platform.

[@mindi2050]

@@seanlander9321 Becoming a parliamentary republic wouldn't mean re-writing the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution needs an update anyway. Some sections of the Constitution are now redundant.

[@seanlander9321]

@@mindi2050 Actually the Crown is so entwined into the Constitution that a rewrite is needed. The failure of the republican movement is that it hasn’t presented a clear description of what an Australian republic means and providing an amended constitution to adopt would go a long way to sorting out the vote.

[@mindi2050]

@@seanlander9321 Leading up to the 1999 referendum ARM produced an alternative Australian Constitution.

[@davecoleman409]

Back in time, just before Meghan arrived in his life, Prince Harry was talked about as GG. In the Naval news.

[@noelleggett5368]

Only Tony Abbott and David Flint would have taken that idea seriously. 😅

[@David-e2n6t]

Harry isn't a royal, his father is James Hewitt

[@noelleggett5368]

@@David-e2n6t Nonsense.. He’s the image of young Prince Phillip.

[@davecoleman409]

Last time I looked, Harry's surname was Windsor. Ajust the other day in fact.​@@David-e2n6t

[@archiebald4717]

For Prince Charles to be Governor of anywhere would have made no sense whatever.

[@feelmehish8506]

just because you can't think.

[@seanlander9321]

Perhaps the absurdity that we had a monarch whose family and government supported Britain’s economic and strategic links to the Europeans who have inflicted a punitive trade embargo on us for generations really should have been the catalyst for a republic? It’s Brexit that has brought the King back, ever so slightly, to wave the flag for any sort of trade his entourage can drum up.

[@rachael2119]

Are you aware that the 1900Commonwealth Constitution hasn’t been in used for over 40 years the uk crown was removed

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

No, because this assertion is untrue. The same Constitution (as amended on 8 occasions) has been used in Australia since federation and continues to be used. People who pretend that it was somehow changed or removed in 1973 are just making up nonsense. You can check this for yourself. Just compare the 1900 version (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12/enacted) with the version used today on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au/C2004Q00685/latest/text) and you will see that the only changes are those made by successful referendums (none of which were passed in 1973). People who say otherwise are just lying to you.