A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published around 7th April 2001.

It is surprising that Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, should give credence (report, April 5th) to the absurd notion that anyone but the British monarch could be Head of that organisation.

In so far as there is any legal basis for the Commonwealth it is to be found in the Statute of Westminster (1931) which defined it as a “free association of autonomous countries . . . united by a common allegiance to the (British) Crown”.

When India renounced its allegiance to the Crown in 1950 it accepted the King (not simply King George VI) as Head of the Commonwealth.  The Royal Style and Titles Act (1953) gave legal effect to this development by adding “Head of the Commonwealth” to the British monarch’s titles.  All former parts of the British Empire which have become republics have consequently had to apply, as India did, to remain in the Commonwealth when they assumed republican status.

In essence the Commonwealth is defined by the British monarch’s being Head of it.  Remove that residual link and the Commonwealth will disappear with it.