Talk:Palace letters

Merge to Hocking
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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

15 July 2020

 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite

16 July 2020

 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite

17 July 2020

 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite

18 July 2020

 * paysite
 * paysite
 * paysite

Books forthcoming: 3 November 2020


See also:   Refers to articles in The Australian (paywalled):

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)