Letter from Frederick H. Boland to Stephen Roche (Dublin)
(Confidential)

Lord Rugby came to see me on the 26th June and told me that it was proposed to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons next week one provision of which would alter King George's title by taking out of it the words 'Emperor of India'. The Governments of the Members of the Commonwealth had been consulted about this change and all had agreed to it. Knowing our position vis-à-vis King George, the British Government had deliberately refrained from approaching us.

When the Bill came before the House of Commons, the question was bound to be asked whether the other Commonwealth Governments had been consulted. The answer would be that the Canadian, Australian, South African and New Zealand Governments had been consulted and had agreed. Ireland would not be mentioned at all unless the question were specifically raised, but the omission of Ireland from the list of Governments consulted might provoke someone to ask a question as to our position. The last thing the authorities in London wanted was any discussion about the Irish position. The Minister would, therefore, have to be ready with a disarming reply, and what he proposed to say was 'the Irish Government has been informed of the proposed change and have said that they have no objection to it'. Lord Rugby wanted to know whether this was agreeable to us.

I told Lord Rugby that I should have to speak to the Taoiseach before giving him a definite reply. Prima facie, I did not care for his formula because it implied a constitutional concern with the King's titles which did not exist in our case. I reminded him of what I had already said to him about the King's title - that we wanted to see the word 'Ireland' out of it, but that, apart from that, our attitude was that the King's title was entirely a matter for the States whose King he was and that we would recognise anything which they agreed upon between themselves. I pointed out that this was the position under Section 3 (1) of our External Relations Act. I also referred Lord Rugby to the debate in the Dáil last week in the course of which it was urged that the King was in our Constitution and that the Act of 1936 should be repealed. I said it was not a moment for spreading misapprehensions as to our position vis-à-vis the King, and the formula he suggested seemed to me to do that.

I subsequently spoke to the Taoiseach and to the Attorney General. I submitted to them that, in principle, what the Minister should say in the House of Commons was that the Irish Government did not regard the King's title as a matter for them - that, subject to the elimination of the word 'Ireland', they would, so long as they remained associated with the Commonwealth, recognise any title to which the States of the Commonwealth agreed among themselves. I said I thought, however, there were practical reasons against suggesting any such reply. In the first place, I thought it would be impolitic to adopt an attitude of complete disinterest in the Royal title as long as the word 'Ireland' remained in it; and, secondly, it seemed to me very important that, if there were to be any public discussion at this stage as to the application of the Statute of Westminster in respect of this country, that discussion should take place first in Dáil Éireann and not in the British House of Commons. The British were in the difficulty that, as the Statute of Westminster stands at the moment, a change in the Royal title might conceivably be held to lack complete legality under British law as long as the Oireachtas do not pass a statute assenting to it. That simply did not make sense from our point of view, but it was most desirable that the point should not be raised and debated in the House of Commons, particularly as, with the Dáil adjourning next week, we might not have an opportunity of rectifying the harmful things which would be bound to be said. On these grounds, the balance of the argument seemed, from our point of view, to be in favour of a disarming reply, and the Taoiseach accordingly authorised me to tell Lord Rugby that, if the question were raised in the course of the debate, we would like the Minister to say - 'The Irish Government were not consulted, but they were informed. They made no comments on the proposed change and raised no difficulties.'

I saw Lord Rugby this morning and informed him to this effect.