Abstract
Dear Sir,
In their recent opinion piece, Kealy-Bateman et al. 1 advocated for removing the prefix ‘Royal’ from the College’s name. Their argument was predicated on the assertion that this term had negative connotations. I wish to provide an alternate viewpoint.
That Australia and New Zealand share head of state is arguably the primary formal political link between the two nations represented in our College. It seems to me the Royal prefix should be taken to signify what it was intended to mark – formal recognition from the current head of state regarding the fine work the College has done and continues to do for the mental healthcare of the citizens of both countries.
Why would the College or its members seek to reject this prominent endorsement? The Royal prefix brings with it gravitas that holds currency with both the media and wider public. Rightly or wrongly, removing it is likely to be interpreted as a demotion (similar to what has occurred with the move from Queen’s Council to Senior Counsel in the legal profession). Eliminating the Royal prefix may in fact diminish the reputation of the College and weaken its advocacy efforts.
The authors question whether “a multicultural and trauma-informed college [can] be Royal?”; suggesting that the term ‘Royal’ is synonymous with the values of colonialism. However, it is contradictory to argue that community attitudes have evolved since the Royal prefix was sought in the 1970s, but that the institution of a constitutional monarchy has not modernised since 1788. Indeed, the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has been instrumental in overseeing the formation of the Commonwealth of Nations as a replacement for the old and problematic Empire. The Commonwealth’s Charter states that its purpose is to bring peace and prosperity to all, whilst celebrating the diversity of cultures. 2 Symbolism is not static across time.
Each country within the Commonwealth must grapple with the devastating impact of colonisation on First Nations people. It is imperative the College continues to address this legacy of health inequity, systemic disadvantage and institutional racism through clinical care, education and advocacy. It is difficult to see how renaming the organisation would lead to meaningful progress in these important endeavours; nor is it clear how retaining the current name would prevent such work.
Rather than being disadvantageous, Royal endorsement can hold opportunity to be a part of the change for good. In society more broadly, the profile of the Royal Family has been used to advance many important social causes and multiple current Royals are patrons of charitable organisations related to mental health. As the Queen’s representative, Australian and New Zealand Governors-General performed the role of patron for the College over many years following it first being granted the prefix. This work is more relevant to the College’s values than attempts to link back to colonialism.
The future of the College’s name is more appropriately connected to the wider political debate around republicanism. In the absence of Australia and New Zealand voting to become republics, the impetus for such a momentous change is lacking.
