16 APRIL 2018



601 International House, W1B 2QD

From the Communications Office

16 April 2018


Subject: The succession of the “Head of Commonwealth”

A precedent has already been set to make Prince Charles the next “Head of the Commonwealth”. 

Let it be agreed that the successor to the title “Head of the Commonwealth” by His Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales as Commonwealth precedent already dictates and supports. The matter of succession regarding who will be the next “Head of the Commonwealth” when Her Majesty, The Queen, expires is a very serious matter indeed. A precedent has already been set with the London Declaration of 1949, as it recognised King George VI as Head of the Commonwealth. The King was strongly in favour of the separation of the positions of King and Head of the Commonwealth, with each being very distinct positions with very different duties. Following his death, the Commonwealth leaders recognised Queen Elizabeth II in that very same capacity. The same should also carry forth with H.R.H. Prince Charles.

Having an a-political and nation-neutral individual as the Head of Commonwealth, such as Queen Elizabeth II, has allowed each nation within the organisation to be equally served without preferential treatment or favouritism. A position that cannot be corrupted or influenced by the politicians of the day who may have their own agendas to benefit from. The London Declaration stated, “… acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.” This sentence, together with the acceptance of Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the Commonwealth, paves the way for the Prince of Wales to assume the position once his mother passes, to keep and respect the precedent established, which has continued to provide a fair and neutral “symbol” of Commonwealth unity and prosperity.

Every member state of the Commonwealth, upon joining the body, took an oath to abide by the London Declaration and recognize the King as Head of the Commonwealth (irrespective of the form of government they have in their own internal borders) any decision which abrogates this understanding would constitute a breach of the aforementioned agreement. At no time did the declaration make any mention of changing how the “Head” was to be chosen, especially with the precedent established that it would be the heir and successor of the British Monarch as has already been established. Some may argue that the position should be open for election, yet such an argument is null and void as such a political position as that of “General Secretary” is already an elected position with a term limit. Others may say that the position should rotate between the states, but that too is repetitive as the Commonwealth already has a rotating “Chairmanship”.

Let there be no confusion, the style “Head of the Commonwealth” has been established as a Royal title, not only confirmed by the London Declaration of 1949 but confirmed by the British Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953, the Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act of 1985, the Australian Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1973 and other pieces of legislation in various Commonwealth countries. Any attempt to republicanise the role of “Head of the Commonwealth” should be subdued and met with the greatest resistance in all of the Commonwealth nations. There is something greater than that of the Commonwealth collective and those individuals who think they know better, and those who wish to go against the set precedent, should be warned, for we read in Ecclesiastes 8 – Obey the King:

“2 Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. 3 Do not be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence… 5 Whoever obeys his command will come to no harm, and the wise heart will know the proper time and procedure.”

The apolitical and nation-neutral Monarchs of the United Kingdom who have helped build, expand and advance the people of the commonwealth as a collective brotherhood of nations, have served the organisation well without political influence or favouritism. Those who oppose the succession of the heir to the throne as being the next “Head of the Commonwealth” would best be reminded of the commitment, duty, proven track records and selfless actions of said Royal individuals who are not able or willing to be corrupted by the political ambitions of those who seek power or position for themselves; those who would forsake the greater good of the organisation and its people, for their own political agenda and individual nation-state.