Allegations of royal funding in Prince Andrew’s settlement revive deeper questions about the monarchy’s political conduct – from the dismissal of Gough Whitlam to claims of concealed influence and broken trust.

We are now learning that our late Queen and our current King were likely funding the alleged child sex abuser Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in his attempt to silence Virginia Giuffre.

We also know of their active role in the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975. They deceitfully denied their role then but thanks to the work of Jenny Hocking we know without any doubt their scheming to bring down a Labor Prime Minister.

The royals are true to form again, covering up their tracks and pretending that they are more virtuous than others.

But first to the under-cover of the child sexual predator Andrew, Elizabeth’s favourite child.

In the _New York Times_, 21 February Sarah Lyall wrote of the “Queen’s role in the appointment of Andrew as a ‘special representative’ for international trade and investment. The police now appear to be investigating his conduct in that role amid reports that he may have improperly shared government documents with Mr Epstein.The job came with a salary of about £250,000 paid by the Queen and provided so many opportunities for lavish taxpayer financed travel to vacation spots and hobnobbing with dubious foreign leaders that the prince gained a new tabloid nickname Air Miles Andy."

Fintan O’Toole in the Irish Times of 24 February went straight to the royal cover up.

“In 2021 Virginia Giuffre sued then Prince Andrew for sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress alleging she had been trafficked to England when she was 17 by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and forced to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor. He unequivocally denied and continues to deny those claims. In 2022 however Mountbatten Windsor reached a settlement with Giuffre. The sum involved has not been disclosed (and Giuffre who subsequently took her own life it is not around to speak for herself) but the Daily Telegraph estimated that it might be in as much as ($A23 million.)"

Who paid this hush money? Reports suggested that brother Charles lent Mountbatten-Windsor much of it and that his mother, the then reigning monarch Elizabeth II, came up with a £2 million contribution as part of the settlement.

Australians know that a cover up came earlier with the key roles of Elizabeth and Charles in the dismissal of an Australian PM. Elizabeth and Charles, both deceived us.

Jenny Hocking has revealed the role of the Queen, Prince Charles and the Palace in the Dismissal.

Kerr’s description of Sir Martin Charteris’ letter of October 75 eased his fear of recall if he sacked Whitlam …“when Prince of Wales was home (from New Guinea) he talked to Sir Matin Charteris (the Queen’s senior private secretary) about it and Martin wrote me a letter in early October… (Martin said that) … if the kind of contingency in mind were to develop the Queen would try and delay things. Certainly, this critical advice from Charteris was seen by Kerr as giving him support and protection. (Kerr) later confided to Sir Walter Crocker the arch imperialist governor of South Australia that he knew exactly how the Queen would deal with his consuming fear of recall by Whitlam. For good reasons, I never had any doubt about what the Queen’s attitude was on this important point. Because the Palace had already told him.” The Palace Letters page 21.

And Charles, our gracious king who now rules over us, was as mentioned above the go-between to get all the royals singing from the same sheet to facilitate the dismissal of Gough Whitlam. Don’t make any mistake about that. Charles was up to his royal ears in it. He was not politically neutral. He sided with privilege and aristocracy.

Hocking writes that, “In the heat of early spring 1975, in New Guinea, the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, sidled up to Prince Charles and suggested a quiet chat …Charles seemed only too pleased to let Kerr ingratiate himself. …Charles allowed himself to be drawn into the collaboration to bring down an Australian Government.”

(In his own papers) Kerr recounts Charles’ solicitous response to the governor-general’s concern for his own possible recall by Whitlam, should Whitlam hear that Kerr was even contemplating dismissal: “But surely Sir John, the Queen should not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time should this happen when you were considering having to dismiss the government…After the dismissal, Charles told Kerr: What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do.”

The lies from the palace followed when the Palace letters were finally released. News Corp quoted a letter from Kerr that “it was better for Her Majesty not to know”. The Times of London chimed in with “the letters prove the Queen had no part in Australia PM Gough Whitlam’s sacking”. Buckingham Palace soon after joined the rush issuing a public statement declaring that the Palace Letters confirmed that “neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr’s dismissal”. This was clearly a lie.

The Queen and the Palace could not help themselves telling lie after lie that they were all in total ignorance about the dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

Tradition and conventions built over centuries were trashed. The damage to our public life goes far beyond the injustice done to Gough Whitlam. How naïve we were in our trust! That is the most wounding thing of all. Out trust was betrayed and abused.

The sacking was a disgraceful example of a ruling class – the Queen, Charles and Charteris – abusing their power to protect privilege. They deliberately deceived an elected Prime Minister. Prince Phillip described Gough Whitlam as a “socialist arsehole”.

The same appalling royal behaviour is now being played out again in defence of the alleged sexual abuser Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Royal ‘magic’ may lie in keeping the true extent of political influence invisible to the public eye, maintaining an appearance of neutrality while remaining deeply engaged behind the scenes. In both the sacking of Gough Whitlam and the funding of Andrew we have learned what has been done in secret by the Palace.

Once the myth of magic is punctured…..

Or as Fintan O’Toole put it,” When people realise that the institution, they have loved is lying to them and that their loyalty is being exploited to cover up the grossest forms of exploitation, respect curdles into revulsion”.