See (7)
Spendlove
Mr. Spend Love 3/3
Plusse Lu Minute on our file
10 Whisket (901/20)
Mr. Tother this has been copeed (< Si N.Pratoland)
Hezker
Sir A.Galsworthy
Sir A.Galsworthy and Sir Saville Garner are
aware, I think, that the original of Sir David Trench's letter of 6th September about a visit by The Queen to Hong Kong (copy at E/3) has been mislaid irretrievably, it would seem.
2.
A proposal that The Queen should visit Hong Kong in the course of a S.E.Asia tour was considered in 1964, the Governor (and Peking) eventually advising with reluctance against a visit. See (4) - (27) on FED.AG/313 attached: the reasons for that advice are set out in the Peking telegram at (16) and the Governor's letter at (18) on those papers.
In 1968
3.
The Governor, in putting forward his present proposal for The Queen to open the Plover Cove Water Scheme suggests that a distinction might be rawn by the Chinese between a visit for a specific purpose and a general visit in the nature of a "display of sovereignty". The Foreign Office preliminary view, which I share, is that this is a very doubtful proposition. They are consulting Peking and will let us have their considered views - both on the proposal for a visit by The Queen and on an alternative suggestion by the Governor that Prince Charles might undertake the visit.
4.
If, as is likely, the Foreign Office come out strongly against a visit by The Queen, I think we must accept their view. In which case, there is clearly no point in asking the Royal Visits Committee to consider the Governor's proposal. The Committee will meet, I understand, on 7th April to consider further the question of a S.E.Asia tour see I of minutes at (8). We are not likely to have considered Foreign Office views by then. It is therefore for consideration whether we should put down a marker at that meeting to the effect that we are again giving some thought with the Foreign Office to the question of a visit to Hong Kong but do not expect a different conclusion from that reached in 1964. There would of course be no point in putting down a marker if the weight of opinion in the Committee should be against a S.E.Asia tour and in favour of a S.American tour. I do not think any of us would accept that a journey by The Queen so far afield for the sole purpose of visiting Hong Kong would be justified or acceptable; there is every reason to believe that, in the se circumstances, the political risks of a Chinese reaction would be much greater.
5.
But I think the Foreign Office may not see any political objections to a visit by Prince Charles. No objection was raised to a visit by the Duke of Edinburgh (see (27) on AG.313): although the Prince as the future Sovereign is admittedly in a different category. And there have of course been visits during the last six years by Princess Alexandra and Princess Margaret, without any Chinese reaction.
The difficulty
here may be that while the Prince is at Cambridge (he goes up next October I believe) there will be no disposition to introduce him to public duties. This may be worth putting to the Committee in due course, But it seems to me that the first step is probably to clear with the Palace whether it is agreed
Xin principle that the Prince might undertake an occasional
suitable public duty in 1968.
/6.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.