Jump to content

Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Numbering

--Griggonator 9 July 2005 16:17

Because she is the first Queen (or monarch) of New Zealand shouldn't she thus be called Elizabeth I of New Zealand or is the numbering of her title kept written about in the Royal Titles Act 1974?

--Lholden 5 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

In a strictly technical sense, perhaps – although it would be confusing to refer to the Queen as Queen Elizabeth I of New Zealand and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom...

And you're also correct that the Royal Titles Act 1974 defines the Queen's title – namely in section 2.

--

I read somewhere else on Wikipedia that when a Monarch has a different ordinal in different realms the largest ordinal is used. This has occured at various times in Scotland and England. Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Future of the monarchy

The rest of the 'future of the monarchy' section of this article now forms part of the Republicanism in New Zealand article. This is because most of the information would have been needlessly repeated on both articles.

--Lholden 5 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

The comment on politicians wanting to increase their power is wrong.

Haha, mmm, I don't think so... If it had a citation it could certainly be an interesting point to lodge.
Without a doubt, I believe certain politicians in New Zealand would love to be President of New Zealand. It's probably that fact alone which motivates them to fix something which isn't broken. It's easy to confuse ideology with ambition. It's still an impasse, mind you Charles, Prince of Wales could certainly break that... -- Greaser
Well, the problem is that firstly most republicans – myself included – would argue that the system *is* broken. Secondly, any citation could only be related to opinions on the issue, which of course would have to be balanced under NPOV rules. --Lholden 02:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Appointment of the Governor-General

An anonymous user (IP 203.97.144.44) has amended the following:

The only constitutional act she regularly performs with respect to New Zealand is to appoint a new Governor-General, which she does on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day.

to include the word "binding" before the word "advice".
 Although I claim no special knowledge of New Zealand constitutional law, I find this statement rather doubtful. If the Queen refused to accept the PM's advice and acted on her own volition, obviously a constitutional crisis would result. But surely that would be a purely political crisis? I find it hard to believe that a NZ court would rule that she had acted unlawfully.
I believe that this should be reworded to reflect that "advice" is more than a mere suggestion, but that it is not a euphemism for "instruction".
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of anyone with specialist knowledge regarding this. Silverhelm 05:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

No, it would be far more serious than a political crises – it would be a constitutional crises. The very basis of passing legislation (i.e. the Royal Assent) could then be brought into question; for if the Queen refused the advice of her Prime Minister, she could surely do the same (and by extension, her representative, the Governor-General) regarding legislation.
However, I don't think the Queen actually has the power to refuse the advice of her Prime Minister, neither do many constitutional lawyers, and former Australian PM Malcolm Fraser. Her Majesty actually acknowledged this to former Australian PM Sir Robert Menzies when he appointed a new Governor-General when she said:
"Well, Mr Prime Minister, I understand that the Constitutional Rule is that you will nominate somebody and that I have no choice in the matter." – Sir Robert Menzies "Afternoon Light" Melbourne, 1967 p.256
So basically, the edit is correct. The advice of the Prime Minister is binding.--Lholden 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the day it is still advice, and its not in written law that she has to accept it, If it was not accepted it would be a constitutional crises through
The the anon edit is sort-of correct IMO Brian | (Talk) 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, it is "advice" but it has to be remembered that our constitution rests on such unwritten conventions being adhered to – i.e. the Queen will always accept the advice of her responsible minister, when they have the confidence of the House. No British Monarch has refused the advice of their responsible minsiters since the time of Queen Anne. This is probably because to do so would make the monarchy political, thus bringing about its end. Queen Elizabeth II is a very astute and intelligent women, and knows this all to well. --Lholden 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Queen refused this adcie, you're correct, it would cause a constitutional crises.
It more along the lines of "Cabinet chooses the governor-general, who is appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the prime minister." I think Brian | (Talk) 09:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cabinet Manual Clause 1.3 states:
"The Governor-General is the representative of the Sovereign in New Zealand and is appointed by the Queen in her capacity as Sovereign of New Zealand, on the advice of the government of New Zealand".
In this case the 'government of New Zealand' = the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister. IMHO It should state "The Queen appoints the Governor-General, who is nominated on the advice of the Prime Minsiter". --Lholden 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed thats how it should read, However the appointment neally allways goes through Cabinet (does not need to stated IMO) Brian | (Talk) 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Requested move

Queen of New Zealand → Monarchy in New Zealand … Rationale: as per Monarchy in Australia, and Monarchy in Canada, bring the article into line with the others. since the office "Queen of New Zealand" is an absentee one, it makes more sense to talk about the monarchy generally. Brian | (Talk) 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments
If New Zealand becomes a Republic, this becomes a historical article. In which case, it should certainly discuss the constitutional position under George VI. Septentrionalis 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not in disagreement with changing the title of this article, simply for the fact that it will bring NZ into line with Australia and Canada. --Lholden 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
However it will be at least a century before Mr Holden gets his way :) Brian | (Talk) 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Queen won't live that long Brian :-) --Lholden 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There is still her "heirs and successors" :) Brian | (Talk) 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly: If you read any polls on the issue, you'll see that HRH Prince Charles is not and will not become as popular as his mother is – monarchy is a system based on an individual; therefore the popularity of the system depends on the popularity of the individual monarch. The heriditary principle, the very basis of monarchy, will eventually destroy it. Anyone who knows anything about British history will tell you that kings crowned Charles don't tend to do so well... --Lholden 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Who said HRH will go by the name King Charles III Brian | (Talk) 23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No matter, he simply is not charismatic enough. Personally, I wish him a long life -- the longer he reigns, the fewer Commonwealth realms will remain. Not that there's any large ones left besides Australia, Canada and New Zealand... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Who knows, Keith Hollyoake got elected on a young Muldoon's popularity. Who's to say that Prince Charles can't maintain the status quo on the popularity of his mother, eldest son and deceased ex-wife? 6 degrees of seperation anyone? ;) -- Greaser 03:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Keith Hollyoake got elected on a young Muldoon's popularity"? Heh? National lost the election in 1972 after the popular 'Kiwi Keith' retired. Muldoon won on his own merits in 1975. As for Charles, only time will tell – but the merits of a republic stand irrespective of who the monarch is. --Lholden 01:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? The wikipedia article on Muldoon suggests otherwise: "Muldoon established a considerable national profile rapidly; many historians credit his image, rather than that of the Prime Minister, Holyoake, or his deputy, Jack Marshall, for the National Party's surprise victory in the 1969 election." This could be worth looking into if this is, as you said, factually incorrect. *mutters something about trade unions versus business roundtable round two under his breath* ;) -- Greaser 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll look at that. I reads like it has been written by a Muldoonist hack. --Lholden 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Realm of New Zealand

We better add a bit about the Realm of New Zealand, HM Queen in Right of NZ, is HoS of: Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue, Ross Dependency and Tokelau. Brian | (Talk) 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already covered pretty much, IMHO. You need only mention the Realm of New Zealand. --Lholden 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Victoria

Queen Victoria is listed as reigning from 1837, but if NZ didn't become a colony until 1840, wouldn't 1840 be the start of her reign as Queen in NZ, although she was already Queen of the UK? NoSeptember 23:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

typo, thanks for picking that up :) Brian | (Talk) 23:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There should be a note of explanation for this or the date will be reverted by someone who is aware that her reign in the UK started in 1837. NoSeptember 23:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

New link, just in case anyone asks

I appreciate the fact that the external link section was being kept lean to keep the bias out, hence this explanation. The new link [1] is the header page for Buckingham Palace's web pages specifically for New Zealand, so I thought that would be a pertinent link, considering its the webpage of the subject being discussed :D

202.180.71.156 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"New Zealand Government"

When did the phase "Her Majesty's Government in New Zealand" get replaced with "New Zealand Government", I'm trying to work out the year to add to the article. The last Act I see that used the phase was the Seal Of New Zealand Act 1977. Brian | (Talk) 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dun Mihaka

In this article it says: "Dun Mihaka offered a traditional rebuke by baring his buttocks at the Queen". But the Dun Mihaka article says his rebuke was aimed at the Prince and Princess of Wales. Which is right? 86.132.142.107 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been a year and a half since this was mentioned. Why hasn't this been addressed yet? 76.123.208.229 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably because it has been disputed to whom it was actually directed at. Some claim the Queen herself, others the Prince. I could put in the article it was disputed but you cant definitively say who it was aimed at unless he tells us himself. Taifarious1 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have changed 'Queen' to 'Royal Family'. Taifarious1 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NZ Royal Family

Having a section about the "New Zealand" Royal Family sounds like a joke IMHO. Everyone knows that the Royal Family is British and not NZ or Australian. Wouldn't it be better to put 'British Royal Family' as a Related Link instead? Jleonau 09:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It is accurate. Brian | (Talk) 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It would, but then we would have to re litigate a pointless argument. --Lholden 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I brougt this up at Monarchy in Canada & Monarchy in Australia – should the Commonwealth realm articles Monarchy in xxx be changed to xxx monarchy (like British monarchy)? GoodDay 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there's no objections, I'll change it. GoodDay 21:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation date

The foundation date of the New Zealand monarchy should be 25 November 1947 (the date the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 gained Royal assent), not 26 September 1907. That date refers to the declaration of Dominion status, and did not in itself create New Zealand's monarchy as a seperate legal entity from the British monarchy. --Lholden 00:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a popular assertion but I have yet to see an authoritative source that backs it up. As far as I can tell there are a number of dates that could be regarded as contenders for the time at which New Zealand entered personal union with the United Kingdom. Here are the ones that seem most plausible to me:
  • 1856 — The first responsible ministry. It could be argued that Sovereign of New Zealand refers to the person of the Crown in Right of New Zealand. The provinces of Canada and states of Australia each use the expression Crown in Right of X, to describe the legal entity of their state or province. So it can be argued that anywhere with a separate executive has a separate crown.
  • 1907 — The proclamation of Dominion status. I've seen it written on Wikipedia in reference to Canada that the term Dominion was meant to signify a separate title. The change of the monarch's title in 1901 seems to support this when "British Dominions beyond the seas" was added, to suggest that the Dominions were separate (if still British) realms.
  • 1926 — The Balfour Declaration clearly states that the Dominions are of equal status, however it had no legal effect. It could, however, be seen as a formalisation of convention and could therefore have constitutional, if not legal, weight.
  • 1927 — Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, it's argued on this page that the change in wording of the Sovereign's title created separate titles for each Dominion
  • 1931 — Statute of Westminster, by which the British Government formalised their intention not to intervene in Dominion affairs unless they were specifically & legally requested. It seems that even before adoption by New Zealand the British Government took this pledge seriously, because it seems they refused to pass legislation for New Zealand until New Zealand adopted the Statute.
  • 1936 — Abdication of King Edward VIII. Canada required special legislation for this, it's possible that New Zealand did too. If so, then separation of the crowns must have occurred prior to this date. Possibly at the Statute of Westminster, but since the only direct reference to succession law in the Statute of Westminster is in the prelude it seems unlikely.
  • 25 November 1947 — the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, as argued above.
  • 10 December 1947 — the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act coming into force. After this no constraints remained on New Zealand's Parliamentary Sovereignty.
  • 1953 — title act mentions Queen of New Zealand for the first time
  • 1983 — office of the Governor-General patriated with reference to the Realm of New Zealand
  • 1 January 1987 — Constitution Act 1986 comes into force, legislation concerning demise of the crown and succession is patriated (albeit by simply referencing to the British succession legislation)
  • 2003 — creation of the Supreme Court, separates the legal systems of the United Kingdom and New Zealand
  • never — since the throne cannot currently be separated, it's not a union, it's a single crown
Ben Arnold 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That's an extensive list, but for an authoritative source, how about Bridled Power by Palmer and Palmer? --Lholden 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a sterile argument. It assumes that there is a separate New Zealand monarchy – i.e. that New Zealand is a kingdom in its own right. That is simply not the case. The Queen of New Zealand is not an entirely separate legal entity from the Queen of the UK. The crown is not divisible. It is legally distinct for some purposes, but that is all. The Queen in right of Alberta is a separate legal entity, legal capacity and essentially royal style. But the Queen of Alberta is no more a separate kingdom than the Queen of New Zealand. To use just one illustration of the fallacy of the divisible crown argument, look at the Constitution Act 1986. This clearly confirms that the sovereign is the sovereign of the UK.

For instance, section 4: "Regency (1) Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that Regent.(2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the Governor-General to exercise that power".

Similarly, section 5: " Demise of the Crown (1) The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of England intituled The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose. (2) Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the Sovereign's heirs and successors."122.59.83.216 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Internal consistency

Currently the article states that the Monarchy of New Zealand was formed on 25 November 1947 but that the first monarch was Edward VII of the United Kingdom. And in the Monarchs of New Zealand it states that Victoria was a monarch of New Zealand. Evil Monkey – Hello 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think thats because before 1947 the monarch had a different title. After then it was King/Queen of New Zealand, beforehand the title was different but the role was the same. If that makes sense. I'm sure someone else can clarify. - Shudde talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
yeah that infobox that was recently added has confused things. I'll have a look over Brian | (Talk) 05:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any confusion. Reading the text, the New Zealand monarchy was created in 1947, but there has obviously been a monarchy in New Zealand since the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840; hence Edward VII can be considered in this article. --Lholden 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that then mean that Victoria was the first monarch, and not Edward? Evil Monkey – Hello 11:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah well that depends on where we're measuring from. For the purposes of the infobox, it should be George V (who was King in 1947). --Lholden 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, George VI was King in 1947. GoodDay 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect photo

The photo in the infobox is not of the Queen "in Right of New Zealand". It was taken on her state visit to the USA in May 2007, for which she was acting on behalf of the United Kingdom. TharkunColl 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Elizabeth II, and that's all the box claims.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

A discussion dealing with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty if you are interested. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand stamps.jpg

File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand stamps.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NZdollar Queen.jpg

File:NZdollar Queen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaffirmation of loyalty

Currently, the article reads:

This reaffirmation of loyalty to the Sovereign, as Head of State, also ensures that the loyalty of servicemen and women as serving members of the Armed Services, regardless of their personal political beliefs, is not given to any one political party, but to the country in the form of the Head of State.

There's no citation for this anywhere, and I suspect none exists because it appears to be original research. --Lholden (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Debate

I've restored the quote from Professor Noel Cox into the debate section, given that this is a significant statement and for the sake of NPOV (since the article states that it is uncertain, when it appears in fact it isn't). Also, there needs to be a citation for the alleged greater degree of difficulty in moving to a republic. I don't know of any academic articles that state the change would be complex. --Lholden (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote gives one person's opinion, and one opinion does not make a fact; what it does do when presented without counter opinion is give that opinion undue weight, thereby imbalancing the overall statement on the effects of a republic on the treaty. If there was a quotation that said the Treaty of Waitangi would be affected negatively by the shift to a republic, then I'd say the Cox quote could stay in full. However, both would merely be elaboration on the statement that "There has... been speculation about what effects the creation of a New Zealand republic would have on the Māori, specifically in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi." Don't you think? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, the section ought to be expanded to ensure there's balance. But firstly, I find it hard to accept that Professor Cox's views on the Treaty are unimportant, particularly when he has been cited numerous times elsewhere on WP as an authority, which he undoubtedly is. Secondly, simply stating there has been "speculation" is really not an adequate explanation of what the issue is – there's numerous issues raised with a republic the main two being (a) the affect on the Treaty's standing in New Zealand's constitutional make up (which is what the Cox quote relates to), and (b) the status of Treaty of Waitangi Settlements. There ought to be an explanation of the two sides of the argument, and how that relates to the wider issues of the Treaty of Waitangi. --Lholden (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say his views were unimportant; in fact, his views are used as supporting reference for the statement made about concerns over the treaty. Perhaps the present wording is insufficient; but we should be careful to maintain balance. Without a sourced counterpoint to Cox's, though, I'm not sure how much more can be written. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, apparently because of a massive server lag, I couldn't see your recent updates to the paragraph in question. I think it reads very well now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering if it had actually gone through. Will update the polling data next – they need citations. --Lholden (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Military

A couple of weeks ago I tagged a claim that the New Zealand Defence Forces take part in the Trooping of the Colour. I've not been able to find any evidence of this, although there may be New Zealanders serving in the British Army who take part. I've also added that in the most recent major battle commemorations, it has been the Governor-General that represented New Zealand, while the Queen represented the United Kingdom. --Lholden (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I've edited the section on the Crown and the defence force. Firstly, the Defence Act 1990 uses the term "armed forces" not militia, the Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief under the letters patent, not the Defence Act, and statutes in New Zealand are published by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (who maintain www.legislation.govt.nz). --Lholden (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The wording was a bit weighted; the governor-general is more frequently in attendance at what ceremonies, where? Also, there was no indication of when the Queen was representing the UK and whether or not she ever acted as Queen of New Zealand, even if the G-G was also there or not. I've reworded it to try and remove some of the speculative phrasing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't speculative. The International Herald Tribune article that was referenced, now sadly offline, clearly stated the Queen was representing the United Kingdom and New Zealand's Governor-General was representing New Zealand. Nonetheless now that article's gone it's unverified, as the event is strangely unrecorded on the British Royal website (neither is the Queen's Speech at the opening of the visitors centre at Passchendaele). I think "more frequently" is a misnomer – I can't find any time or date when a member of the Royal family attended a military commemoration in New Zealand, the Governor-General does so – last Anzac Day I think he was in Gallipoli representing New Zealand there. --Lholden (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the lack of access to the HT article did pose problems: At what event specifically was the Queen representing the UK? Could the press have been wrong (it's common)? Does it ultimately matter to this page?
Prince William attended a ceremony at the war memorial in Wellington in 2010, and a WWII commemoration in Auckland in 2005; Princess Anne was at an ANZAC service in 1990 marking 75 years since Gallipoli; Prince Charles attended the 90th anniversary of the battle. These results are just from a five minute search. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Five minutes!? Sadly I was talking about actual commemorations... the war memorial William laid his wreath at in 2010 is the national war memorial in Wellington, it's custom for visiting heads of state to stop and lay a wreath there. Even the President of East Timor laid a wreath there – so not a commemoration. The 2005 event was a commemoration, however, so I'll give you that... then there's the 1990 visit by Queen Anne, so that is another commemoration. Prince Charles didn't appear to be representing New Zealand at the 90th anniversary of Gallipoli – we sent our Prime Minister.
Yes the media could've been wrong, but that doesn't mean the Queen wasn't there representing the United Kingdom. If she wasn't, why did we send our Governor-General to represent the Queen of New Zealand? --Lholden (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The presence of either the governor-general or the prime minister, or both, doesn't prevent the Queen from representing New Zealand. But, without further information, I can't comment more on the specific event you're talking about; the Queen was there, but there seemed to be more than one ceremony over the course of the day and it isn't specified who was representing what when. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this in the cold hard light of morning, I was thinking perhaps if the whole sentence is redundant. Because it can't be verified who the Queen was representing, I've moved the sentence "The governor-general more frequently represents the sovereign at military commemorations in New Zealand and sometimes at ceremonies abroad; for example, Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand in 2007 attended commemorations of the Battle of Passchendaele in Belgium." to the note along with the reference, so it's not so laboured. I've removed any mention of frequency as it no longer relevant. --Lholden (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee

Are there any plans to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II in New Zealand in 2012? If so, please add them to the Jubilee article! David (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Crown and Maori section

This paragraph doesn't make sense:

"Hence the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and over 500 Māori chiefs, and is considered the founding document of the nation, or the "Magna Carta" of New Zealand, and a "cornerstone of... Aboriginal rights,"[citation needed] being an agreement directly between the indigenous peoples and the Queen of New Zealand in Council, identified in the treaty as Kawanatanga."

There's a number of problems with this: 1. The first sentence correctly states that the Treaty was signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown (i.e. Hobson and Busby) and Maori cheifs. I'm sure we can find a citation to confirm the Magna Carta statement but... 2. The sentence continues that the Treaty is an agreement "directly" between Maori and the "Queen of New Zealand in Council". Since the positition of "King/Queen of New Zealand" didn't exist until at least 1947, the statement is incorrect, and contradicts (1.)... 3. Finally, "Kawanatanga" as argued by Moana Jackson is in the context of who the other party to the Treaty is – who he states is the New Zealand Government, not "the Crown" in the sense of the monarch – he certainly didn't mean the Queen in Council. I propose the section be re-worded:

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and over 500 Māori chiefs, and is considered the founding document of the nation, or the "Magna Carta" of New Zealand, and a "cornerstone of... Aboriginal rights." The Treaty identifies the Crown's right to Kawanatanga or Governorship, leading one Maori academic to argue that Kawanatanga is party to the Treaty.

--LJ Holden 01:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now edited the section in question to better reflect what Jackson actually wrote. --LJ Holden 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

TVNZ poll

Since I've been accused of pushing my POV here just a quick note: to be as neutral as possible, poll results should be related directly to their question. --LJ Holden 18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Divisible monarchy

The article states as a fact that the monarchy is separate and legally distinct. That is a debated and contentious argument, and certainly should not be recorded as a fact.

There are practical and legal reasons for arguing against the idea of a separate monarchy, not the least of which is that British laws pertaining to the Crown have effect on the "Queen of New Zealand".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The concept of a shared monarchy was established in the 1970's in New Zealand and it should not be a surprise that the Queen of New Zealand acts on advise of her NZ ministers in regard of New Zealand. The UK hasn't had any power to legislate or instruct the sovereign in matters relating to New Zealand since the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, granting complete autonomy to its six Dominions. New Zealand adopted this law in 1947 New Zealand.
British laws pertaining to the Crown (acting in right of the UK) have affect on the Queen of the UK and Northern Ireland and no other realm.

--Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Karl, that is a matter of political independence and representative government, not the Crown. The Statute of Westminster envisaged a single Crown, not a divisible one. Whether the Crown has been divided – and New Zealand is now a kingdom – is a different matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_New_Zealand/Archive_1&oldid=1120518190"