Am Australian and for a significant part of our history we've had British pounds, Got Save The Queen as our national anthem, the Union Jack as our flag (still exists in one corner), the Privy Council of the UK as our highest court of appeal, and so on.
Each time one of these was dropped, it was largely (with, of course, some opposition) seen as a positive historical transition into a unique Australian identity.
What, however, were the comments from members of the British monarchy about these?
I'm led to believe they were always jolly good sports, and while there has been no official hostilities, were the royals ever quoted to have been pissed off?
I answered a similar question here a while back, speaking strictly from the Canadian perspective and touched upon the Monarchy's reactions, or perhaps more succinctly, lack thereof, to the 1931 and 1982 acts.
Nothing I have come across in my constitutional studies noted any amount of serious political or private resistance from Westminster to these acts. This perhaps doesn't completely exclude any personal feelings of some members of parliament or the House of Westminster, but if that's the case they've had the good sense to keep such personal feelings, well...personal. The fact that the monarchy were willing to work with the commonwealth countries' governments to seek their approval/disapproval during the Abdication Crisis in the 1930s shows that the Monarchy were quite willing to work within the new framework of the 1931 act from its very outset.
We can therefore make a reasonable assumption that the Monarchy remained, as would expected of them, silent or politely supportive of further efforts to create a national identity and unburden the national bank of Britain with foreign users.