Talk:Monarchy in New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Numbering 2 Future of the monarchy 3 Appointment of the Governor-General 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 5 Realm of New Zealand 6 Victoria 7 New link, just in case anyone asks 8 "New Zealand Government" 9 Dun Mihaka

[edit] Numbering

--Griggonator 9 July 2005 16:17(sorry I didnt put this in before.. i forgot my password lol)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)