The diamond jubilee
February 7th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
The queen is now the second longest-serving monarch in British history after Queen Victoria, who reigned from 1837 to 1901.
During Elizabeth’s reign there have been 12 British prime ministers, 12 US presidents and six popes.
I believe NZ should become a republic, but I am also a big fan of QEII whose devotion to duty is without peer.
Incidentally she has had 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers, and by coincidence she has also had 14 Governor-Generals represent her.
Some facts from the diamond jubilee website:
- Only Queen Victoria has served for longer – 63 years. It seems likely that record will be broken in 2015.
- The Queen is the 40th monarch since William the Conqueror.
- Both Tony Blair and David Cameron were born after the Queen ascended to the throne, and hence have had no other Sovereign.
February 7th, 2012 at 10:07 am
*Governors-General
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Pedant
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:18 am
With respect, I’d rather be in a Commonwealth of Nations than a dysfunctional United Nations (not that the latter is without merit).
With regard to the hereditary selection on the Head of State: an elected Head of State could quite easily be selected for reasons more spurious. And they would always be political – not above politics as the Queen is.
Plus it’s cool to have a King/Queen; a symbol of all that we hold dear in this country. As much as I like John Key, no one in the armed forces heart would be warmed very much on a cold night at their post by thinking about John Key and country.
God save the Queen.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:19 am
“I believe NZ should become a republic”
My god!..can you imagine the balls up we would make of that as well?
Even allowing for the complete fuck up we would make of becoming a republic there is an even better reason to stay with the Queen and that is the fact that our Politicians just would not be able to keep the position of President a non political one.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:22 am
I will support a Republic when and only when both Jim Bolger and Helen Clark are dead.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:24 am
EWS & Bruv are spot on. Seconded.
[Although the reign of Charles XIII is going to be helluva difficult times indeed for those of us still in favour of ties to the English monarchy. He should immediately abdicate in favour of William, who would be far more popular... my 2s.]
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:29 am
The Queen performs her constitutional role with distinction and hence the institution has survived. But a lesser person would have seen it swept away. Fortunately Pricne William seems to be OK as well as his choice of Kate Middleton, so for the next 60 years or so the institution looks fairly safe even if it defies all logic
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Adze is correct – I was going to comment on it but I was beaten to it. At least there was no apostraphe.
I also think that there are countries in the British Commonwealth that do not have the Queen as head of state – India? South Africa? I don’t think being a republic is necessarily a barrier of entry to the British Commonwealth.
There are serious questions that need to be asked before New Zealand becomes a republic – whether there is a need for a written constitution, exactly what the power of the President is, and the exact process of election/appointment.
That’s not to say I think it shouldn’t happen – I just think New Zealand will and should be a follower of Australia in this regard, since Australia is a bit more grown up as a country than New Zealand, where certain sections of the population and the elite are stuck in the 1840s.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:34 am
@ RRM
While I agree that Charles XIII (if he in fact takes that name) could have a bumpy ride, it’s important to remember that it is the constitutional position of the Sovereign that is important, less so the actual person. And therefore I’m less inclinded to support an abdication on the grounds that he’s ‘unpopluar’ or ‘odd’ as it could set a bad precedent.
[DPF: He has indicated he is likely to reign as George VII]
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Should I be pedantic about “she has had 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers”?
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Adze: Dammit, beat me too! Shame on you DPF!
I think Whaleoil and others have hit the nail on the head…for practical purposes it makes no difference whether the person signing the legislation is the sovereign’s rep or a president….But as the constitutional crisis in Australia in 1974 shows, when the shit really hits the fan it’s bloody important to have the right person as head of state….I will get howls of derision for this, but I had a bit of time for Keith Locke’s bill….from memory the president had to be approved by 75% of parliament….given that our consitutional arrangements are hugely different from the US, I cant see how we would have popular elections for Prez….although I guess it could happen….but given the dopiness of the electorate we might get W Peters of Herne Bay….or some retired all black forward…
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:42 am
EWS>As much as I like John Key, no one in the armed forces heart would be warmed very much on a cold night at their post by thinking about John Key and country.
Do you honestly think that the members of the military sit around thinking about the queen?
Altho the military are a strange lot. They have a unit called “Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles”. Who the hell is Queen Alexandra and why should she be commemorated by the NZ Army decades after she has been forgotten by history? And why did they make Prince Phillip a NZ Army Field Marshal? That’s just third world Idi Amin behaviour.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Right Now: No….when I attended Mangapapa Primary that usage was completely correct
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:49 am
The constitutional crisis in Australia was in 1975.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:50 am
EWS – You’re entirely right it’s about the positon not the man. But THAT man is just a bit loose, I’m concerned he will discredit the whole institution. [He told Camilla he wanted to be her Tampon, FFS...]
I don’t know if he’d be Charles XIII, I just made that up. But that’s what I’ll be calling him…
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Charles XIII WTF ? I presume Charles III is intended. If he abdicates in favour of his son, then the King would be William V.
Queen Alexandra was the Queen Consort of Edward VII. She would have been the honorary colonel of the Regiment, hence the name.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 10:56 am
I thought we had a Charles III (at least of Scotland)
.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Two words that should end all talk of a republic amongst sane people: President Helen
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Neither the Queen nor the Prince of Wales, when he succeeds, will abdicate. They regard abdication as a dereliction of duty, which is why Edward VIII’s abdication was such a traumatic event for the Monarchy.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:08 am
David Garrett points out why we must never agree to become a republic.
If we allow the politicians to elect the President (even allowing for a 75% majority) then we will indeed end up with a Clark, Bolger, Turia or Bradford as President.
The government of the day will simply put up their nomination and do deals on other bills to get the support of the house.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Or when one of them becomes Governor-General.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Ed Snack>Queen Alexandra was the Queen Consort of Edward VII. She would have been the honorary colonel of the Regiment, hence the name.
So when soldiers get together over a few beers, do the ones serving in Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles mock their colleagues who serve in units which don’t have such a long history and don’t have the honour of being named after minor 19th century royalty? That must be humilating for the SAS and British Paratroopers. Maybe the SAS could press to rename their unit “King George III Hussar Regiment” or something.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:12 am
No you shouldn’t Right Now, I managed to resist.
@RRM He should immediately abdicate in favour of William, who would be far more popular… my 2s.
Yep, sure, the whole world should be run by popularity contests.
But shouldn’t it be done properly in keeping with our times? BBC could do a programme on “Who’s going to be King/Queen” and the Commonwealth could txt vote on it before the final whistle.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:12 am
@big bruv,
why do you think it is more likely that Clark, Bolger, Turia or Bradford would become President in a republic than that they would become GG now?
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:13 am
David Garrett an interesting argument, all ex MPs are brighter than All Black forwards, I understand Sir Brian Lochore can dress himself in the mornings.
Vote:It seems MPs, ex MPs have the belief the public are not up to selecting a president by vote, you know democracy.
February 7th, 2012 at 11:25 am
It is widely known, though not officially stated, that Charles will follow his grandfather Albert in taking the name George on becoming King. So he will be George VII, not Charles III.
I would like to keep the Queen as NZ’s titular Head of State, and she would perform that role whenever on New Zealand soil. However, the Governor General should be an elected position independent from the whims of either Sovereign or Prime Minister. This would provide all the benefits of republicanism, while keeping the ties and traditions which a Monarch affords us.
There are plenty of countries with apolitical and ceremonial elected Presidents/Heads of State (India, Germany, Israel and Ireland all come to mind). I see no reason why New Zealand can’t do the same with the Governor General. And I see no reason to fear that the position would be politicised, since its only power is that of dissolving Parliament, and a dubious legal right of veto in extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think ex politicians would run for it, to be honest.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:26 am
eszett, Governor General is simply a lackey, President not so.
I’d be all for the popular election for a President as long as those voting have proved their competence to vote, dead against Parliament appointing the head of state (as they do her lackey now).
Most of all though I’m all for a Republic of the South Island.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:34 am
The entire North Island is with you on that one.
Vote:But only if you take Hamilton with you.
February 7th, 2012 at 11:36 am
We’ve done very well as a constitutional monarchy this past 150 years or so.It ain’t broke don’t need to fix it.
Creeping republicanism is anti democratic. Privy Council anybody? Thanks Comrade Helen.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Grumpy(man with the silly nick): Although I dont know the man I share your confidence in Sir Brian’s ability to dress himself – and much more besides – but would you really want Pinetree Meads deciding whether a request to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections was in the best interests of the country?
Big Bruv: You make a most valid point….sadly deals are done all the time in parliament, and dubious deal making has a very long history…I am thinking of Social Credit and the Clyde Dam in the late 70′s … but it should be remembered that under our present arrangements there is no scrutiny at all of the nominee for GG ….There has already been one arguable abuse of the power, the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake by Muldoon….I believe there is some convention which requires consultation with the opposition, but so far as I know (some erudite chap like Graeme E can confirm) if some future Labour government proposed Hulun there is nothing the Nats could do to stop her having the ultimate power she always craved…
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:42 am
But a monarchy is the hotbed of democracy.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:44 am
kowtow: I too am an “if it aint broke dont fix it” man….and I agree, our constitutional arrangements have worked pretty well for the last 150 years….the whole republican thing seems to carry too many nasty fishooks and issues no-one has clear and cogent answers to…But it’s an issue that isnt going to go away…
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:55 am
@ kowtow – agreed re the creeping republicanism. Under the last Labour govt in particular there were a number of quasi republican reforms (eg abolishing appeals to the Privy Counsel and removing the title of Queen’s Counsel) which took place without there being any real debate about whether we should cut all constitutional ties to the monarchy. Some of those reforms have since been revered by the current Govt, but not all.
The reforms appeared (IMHO) to be part of a long term plan to remove the vestiges of monarchy so that the final steps to a republic would be easier. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. But my concern was always that we should have the debate first, then make the reforms – not the other way around.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@ davidp
Indeed no, I don’t actually think soldiers feel a warmth in their bosom when thinking about Queen and Country when on duty. But when I did serve, the sense of being part of something bigger than ourselves and our own ambitions, and something that transcended partisan, media-spun, and fleeting ephemeral politics, did make us feel good.
There’s a line in the Helen Merrin movie The Queen when QEII snaps out of her funk when Tony Blair begins instructing her on the mood of the British people. She points out that if there’s anyone in England who knows the British people it is her. Notwithstanding the mis-reading of British people’s mood immediately after Princess Diana’s death, there really is no one else in the Western world (with perhaps the exception on Pope John Paul II) who at the time could read the social to’s-and-fro’s of war, peace, economic ups & downs, progress, revolution, and life & death, while actually being a player in that drama. I add that last bit about being a player because a history academic could claim to be a master of 20th century life, but they didn’t actually have a role IN it. Similarly, someone like Henry Kissinger or McNamara (big players at key points) might have their opinions, but they were never a player in human history for 60+ years.
But if New Zealanders decide they’d like to elect some flunky ex-judge as the President of New Zealand out of some stunted sense of independence, then so be it. To me though, it reminds me of a self-conscious teenager not wanting his mum to drop him off at movies because all his mates will see her.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Charles is incredibly dim-witted. When I studied in London it was common for local Londoners to refer to him as a “bigot” (particularly for his controversial opinions on culture, race and religion).
He’s very much accustomed to the “Rule Britannia” rhetoric of the nineteenth century and has no valid place as Head of State and Commonwealth here in the 21st century.
Prince William is their greatest asset, Harry has potential.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
David – Keith Locke’s bill was the worst written piece of legislation I have ever seen. I am as close as I can get to saying the worst written bill ever, but not having read all of them prefer not to be corrected when someone points out something written in the 1880s.
I noted at the the time that “The idea that Locke would seek to provoke debate on whether we should have a hereditary monarch, who passes on their status to their eldest son (who must be a Protestant and not marry a Catholic), by advancing a bill that could replace them with an elected Head of State, who – in the event of their untimely death – would probably be replaced for the remainder of their term by their eldest son who must be a Protestant and cannot have married a Catholic is a little out there even for him.”
I’m not usually one to self-promote in this way, but my post on Keith’s bill (http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/bad-law/) is probably my personal favourite of all the things I have ever written.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
“Two words that should end all talk of a republic amongst sane people: President Helen”
I am now an ex republican
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
1. They could try to convince the Labour Government’s confidence and supply partners (or individual Labour MPs) to withdraw support for the government between the time the announcement was made and the time the Queen signed off on it.
2. They could kick up such a fuss that Helen might announce that while she is honoured to have been asked, personal commitments prevent her from etc. etc.
3. That fuss might instead cause the Government to reconsider (likely leading to them privately asking Helen to go down route #2 as above).
4. When they won the next election, the National PM could instruct the Queen to install a new Governor-General.
5. Whichever law school taught you that the Governor-General has “the ultimate power” should be audited by Council of Legal Education. (The political science department that taught you analysis that might lead you to conclude that Helen Clark would want to be Governor-General was perhaps similarly deficient)
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
That was very promptly denied (in a way different to most Royal rumours) after the article claiming it was published.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
David Garrett Sir Colin, nope, but Sir Brian could certainly handle the role with grace and style.
But the great thing is we Monarchists are certain NZ will stay with the Crown for one good reason, we just have to mention that a political hack will be appointed as president by parliament, politicians could not help themselves.
Vote:As Sir Ed stated, all politicians are self serving.
February 7th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Tautaioleua Prince Harry, I wonder if the Aussie Monarchists should start a push for Prince Harry to take the throne for the Aussie realm.
Now that would make the aussie republicans (damn Rebels
) choke.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Graeme: In this instance I must differ with you…I was taught Public Law by none other than Prof. Philip Joseph, who as you know, wrote the textbook.
As I understand it, there is nothing other than convention requiring a GG to sign any particular bill, or to take the 1975 Aussie example (thanks to who corrected me on the year) agreeing to dissolve parliament at the request of the opposition. But please do give me your view….if Key decided (for whatever reason) to dissolve parliament and seek a fresh mandate, and the GG said no, what – other than replace the GG – can Key do? And what if – as unlikely as that is – the Queen refused to appoint a new GG at Key’s request…. What happens then? Or perhaps (slightly) more likely, what if Shearer persuaded the GG to dissolve parliament – as happened in Australia in 1975, entirely against Whitlam’s wishes – where would you say ultimate power lay?
I realise this is all hugely hypothetical, but if Sir Gerry decides he’s not going to be replaced and seeks the army’s protection, and Liz God bless her, declines to act on Key’s “advice” to replace him, what then? The answer “none of this would happen” would be what a constitutional law expert would have said in Australia in 1974..
[DPF: The Queen would never go against the advice of an elected Prime Minister, if he or she got to her in time. So in case of a stand off between GG and PM, it is really who acts first. If the GG dissolve Prlt as in Australia in 1974, then there will be an election. But if the Govt is re-elected the GG will be toast.
If the PM loses confidence in the GG and requests their dismissal, then that would happen, and there would be a new GG within the day.]
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
A constitutional crisis. Then someone backs down, or is pressured to back down.
The alternative is that one forces the other to back down. And we should probably avoid that if we can.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
A constitutional crisis in a sense. I find that the concern about “what happens if…” seems to be fed by (in part) a desire to have a ‘perfect process/perfect system’ (almost utopian). There is no perfect system, though I note that England still exists – 1000 years and counting.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Of course, as ever, the great unspoken before we could even think about becoming a republic: “The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Davidp, usually the soldiers don’t argue (much) about who their honorary colonel is, but they may dispute about precedence, at least in the UK. The “oldest” regiment in the British army who is therefore entitled to occupy “the right of the line” is the Royal Horse Artillery (RHA) (when with it’s guns), otherwise the household cavalry ranks first. Of the Infantry, it’s the Grenadier Guards followed by the Coldstream. Just for amusement.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
eszet@1142
It’s a constitutiional monarchy.A democracy in all but name.
Look at other very democratic successful relatively stable and happy states……Australia, Canada, the UK and here.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Graeme E: (Determined not to give in too easily on this one) Hypothetically, is there anything stopping a GG refusing to sign a bill and dissolving parliament on his own motion and calling an election? Who would the person who heads the electoral machinery be bound by convention to follow in such a scenario??
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
There is no convention to deal with such a circumstance. But there is a law. When the Governor-General has issued a writ after the dissolution of Parliament, an election is held. Probably wouldn’t stop someone seeking a judicial review, however.
Is there anything stopping it? I’m assuming “Constitutional Propriety” isn’t what you were after? Well, that’s what has stopped it so far. And to turn something said earlier back on you: it’s been working, and if it ain’t broke…
I imagine what happens is an incredibly acrimonious election, substantial damage to society and social and political institutions and a constitutional crisis as above, but given that this hasn’t happened in any Westminster Democracy in several hundred years, your calling it in aid of an argument that the Governor-General has “the ultimate power” that Helen Clark desires is a little far-fetched.
Vote:February 7th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
LOL @grumpyoldhori
King Harry resonates well with the common kiwi too, I would imagine. And his skills in the British armed forces are complimentary, should we find a Prime Minister unwilling to step down when called upon lol.
Harry is a lot like the genuine bloke from down under, I would think.
Vote: