Canberra, 18 April 1973
I write to add background for your preparations for the discussion the Prime Minister will be having with Her Majesty.
The subjects of discussion seem likely, as I understand it, to include possible changes in the Royal Style and Titles, in coinage, in the designation of our High Commissioners and in communication between the Australian States and Her Majesty. There is also the moves towards our own distinctive National Anthem.
The Prime Minister’s thinking about a possible change in the Royal Style and Titles is a response to the developing identity of the Australian nation and an attempt, in that context, at achieving within Australia, a more immediate identity between Her Majesty and her Australian realm. Two adjustments suggest themselves immediately in this context. One is the possibility, with the advantages in Australia that it would carry, of making Australia not only the principal but the single named realm in the recital of titles. To this end, the reference in general terms to Her Majesty’s other realms and territories would stand, but the existing specific reference to the United Kingdom would be omitted, as it has already been in some other Commonwealth countries. The other is the possibility that Her Majesty’s Australian Style and Titles would include a reference to ‘Elizabeth’ rather than, as now, to ‘Elizabeth the Second’.
Any such changes would, or course, involve legislation, but before proceeding to this or to any public discussion, the Prime Minister feels he would like to have opportunity of consultation with the Queen herself. Other particular phrases in the citation which have come under discussion here are the reference to Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom and the descriptions ‘by the Grace of God’ and ‘Defender of the Faith’.
On coinage, the point for discussion will be the designation ‘II’ appearing after ‘Elizabeth’ on Australian coins. It links with the point referred to above.
The point about letters of accreditation is whether Australian Ambassadors might receive their Letters of Credence from the Governor-General, and whether agrèment also could be completed within Australia. There is already some authority in the Governor-General, for special and short-term missions, and the thought is that this might be extended to normal postings. It is associated with the view that signature by the Governor-General might overcome in the minds of other governments the sense that Australia’s formal processes are not self-contained and show that the position and role of the Governor-General is substantial, although still unequivocally Vice-Regal. This is not so much to argue the case as to sketch in the considerations which have led to the subject being raised for discussion. To a substantial degree, our thinking is based on convenience as the number of Australian posts overseas increases, and with it the frequency of appointments. The change is seen as one which is contained within and is protective of the concept of monarchy.
The Prime Minister similarly would, I believe, consider use of the title ‘Ambassador’ in Commonwealth countries more appropriate to these times than ‘High Commissioner’. This assures full accreditation, and would avoid possible misunderstanding of the position. The issues involved in such a change are clearly recognised here and the Prime Minister will therefore see a discussion as an opening one leading to further consultation in depth at a later stage.1
On communications between the Australian States and Her Majesty, the point for discussion will be the present practice of communication on matters such as Governors, Honours and Flags, by the States’ Representatives through the British Government.
You have already seen the commissioning of a committee to examine the possibility and method of choosing a distinctive National Anthem for Australia. I attach a copy of the most recent statement by the Prime Minister setting out competition details.2
It is not my intention, of course, nor would I want you to read this letter as an effort in advance to express views on matters which fall properly to the Prime Minister and Her Majesty. But the Prime Minister wished that the Queen should have, at least in outline and in some context, an indication of subjects he may wish, in all good will, to explore with Her.
Also, I think I should mention one other matter, since the Prime Minister has spoken to me more than once about it. It is that when the Queen is here in October he would hope that she will, as Queen of Australia, sign as many Bills and Commissions as possible.
1 Soundings had already been taken in London on this issue. Charteris did not know what other Commonwealth countries might think about changing the title of their Commonwealth representatives from High Commissioner to Ambassador. He did not think this would be a problem for republican members of the Commonwealth. For monarchical countries, however, the position was less clear (A 1209, 1973/6292, DFA inward cablegram 5399 from Australian High Commission, London, 5 April 1973).
2 See Documents 442 and 448.
[NAA: A1209, 1973/6398]