Did the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 secretly amend the Constitution?

This video responds to claims that the enactment of the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), under the Whitlam Government, amended the Commonwealth Constitution. It explains why the Commonwealth Constitution does not need to be amended every time there is a change of monarch, or a change from a Queen to a King. It discusses how the monarch is identified 'according to law', and that the law is part of Australian law and cannot now be changed except by Australia. It addresses the meaning of covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and how it is likely to be interpreted by the courts today. The video also discusses the process by which Australia became an independent nation and the Crown became divisible, with a separate Crown of Australia. This happened as a consequence of Imperial Conferences in 1926 and 1930. It notes that no referendum was required, as it involved a change of convention about ministerial advice to the monarch, which is not a matter addressed by the Commonwealth Constitution. It ends by outlining the view of the courts about this claim concerning the Royal Style and Titles Act, and how it has been consistently rejected. Oops - there's a typo in the heading on the video, but I'm afraid it is too late to fix it. Sorry!