NZ’s future King

Debate and discuss!

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment36

Uncategorised
New Zealand

Comments (36)

Login to comment or vote

Zutroy

He also cheers for Emirates Team NZ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 6:41am
crasster

A repulsive prospect. Sorry, I have no idea why this Englishman should have anything to do with the governance of New Zealand. Out of respect to the Queen, we should do nothing until she pops her clogs. Once she’s gone, we do the bleeding obvious and chart our own course in the World with an indigenous head of state. It’s inevitable. Even the most psychotic monarchist (and they’re all pretty psychotic)would have to acknowledge that republicanism is inevitable. You cannot tell me that in three hundred years time, the monarchists think a descendant of the current lineage will be head of state? It’s more than likely that well within this timeframe Britain would have shifted the Royal Family out of any role in government into purely a tourism attraction. William seems like a nice enough fellow. Unlike his Dad – who’s a complete kook. But that’s not enough for me. Time for a republic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 6:49am
David Farrar

Zutroy – as does everyone outside Switzerland.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:11am
Brian

A republic is not inevitable crasster, not at all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:41am
Zutroy

He was doing it back when many NZers were cheering for Alinghi.

Of course William would cheer the British Lions – he’s British! But the mistake that Republicans make is that they personalise the debate in terms of Charles/William, instead of focusing on the merits of constitutional monarchy versus a republic.

If the republicans were to come out and show me and others how we are worse off by having a historical tie to the British Crown, then sure, let’s have that debate. Personally, I don’t care for change, because I haven’t seen a compelling argument. The rugby jersey colour that a King would wear is a pretty pathetic argument to make, given that I have also seen the future king wear Team NZ gear.

Show me how laws will be better written with a republic. Show me how our judicial process will be better. Show me how our parliamentarians will perform to higher standards. Show me the cost savings in not having a foreign crown compared to running a president in NZ. Show me how our lives will be better by appointing or electing a technically powerless NZer instead of a technically powerless Briton.

Because on the basis of this rather weak video, I’m still not inclined to support change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:56am
Crasster

Brian: Seriously? You think that we will, forever more, give one English family the unique privilege of head of state? Really? You can’t even picture Britain keeping with it for the long-term. It’s just crazy to think in hundreds of years we will still maintain this obscure link to Britain – even when the British have moved on.

Zutroy: There is a counter-argument: Show me how laws will be worse off under a republic. Show me how parliamentarians will perform to a lower standard under a republic, etc. I appreciate that the burden of proof falls to those advocating change. But, at best, the change is symbolic. It’s about growing up as an independent nation. We can never forget our historical relationship and linkage to Britain – but as a modern state, c’mon, it makes no sense to perpetuate one family’s exclusive primogeniture. And, aside from the “growing up” argument – there are other arguments about whether it’s appropriate in a multi-cultural country to have a male, protestant Englishman from a particular family as the natural default choice for head of state. We know, for certain, for example (ceteris paribus), that our next two heads of state will be white, English protestant males (Charles and William). It just seems so out of kilter with feminism, with multi-culturalism, with religious diversity, with democracy. It just seems anachronistic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 8:21am
Crasster

Brian: Seriously? You think that we will, forever more, give one English family the unique privilege of head of state? Really? You can’t even picture Britain keeping with it for the long-term. It’s just crazy to think in hundreds of years we will still maintain this obscure link to Britain – even when the British have moved on.

Zutroy: There is a counter-argument: Show me how laws will be worse off under a republic. Show me how parliamentarians will perform to a lower standard under a republic, etc. I appreciate that the burden of proof falls to those advocating change. But, at best, the change is symbolic. It’s about growing up as an independent nation. We can never forget our historical relationship and linkage to Britain – but as a modern state, c’mon, it makes no sense to perpetuate one family’s exclusive primogeniture. And, aside from the “growing up” argument – there are other arguments about whether it’s appropriate in a multi-cultural country to have a male, protestant Englishman from a particular family as the natural default choice for head of state. We know, for certain, for example (ceteris paribus), that our next two heads of state will be white, English protestant males (Charles and William). It just seems so out of kilter with feminism, with multi-culturalism, with religious diversity, with democracy. It just seems anachronistic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 8:21am
fishbowlnz

ok can you dumb this down for me…

I can pick from a vaguely familiar Brit who has little effective power and can be relied on to open things, be patron of worth causes and provide fodder for the glossy mags, this essentially paid for by the British public. Or I can get another level of Government at considerable cost and waste… just please tell me which NZer you would think worthy enough to take on this role.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 9:02am
mikeybill

If it aint broke…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 9:22am
pdm

`…just please tell me which NZer you would think worthy enough to take on this role.’

fishbowlnz I take it you have concerns about prospective Presidents.

I do – we certainly don’t want the ilk of Bolger, Clark, Palmer etc. I think the first two in particular have been angling for it for some time.

Quite frankly I just do not see a worthy candidate out there and because of that favour the `status quo’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 9:31am
bed and breakfast

good site!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 9:47am
Susan Aucutt

What makes you so angry about the monarchy?

A little of this anger could well be expended on our present government. And, pray, who would you make President of our dear little country? There are aren’t any around who would fill this capacity with the dignity and IMPARTIALITY yes, and mana, which such a position demands.

There are many, many ills here in NZ – concentrate on them before you try to lower our standards even more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 10:14am
Susan Aucutt

What makes you so angry about the monarchy?

A little of this anger could well be expended on our present government. And, pray, who would you make President of our dear little country? There are aren’t any around who would fill this capacity with the dignity and IMPARTIALITY yes, and mana, which such a position demands.

There are many, many ills here in NZ – concentrate on them before you try to lower our standards even more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 10:15am
Susan Aucutt

What makes you so angry about the monarchy?

A little of this anger could well be expended on our present government. And, pray, who would you make President of our dear little country? There are aren’t any around who would fill this capacity with the dignity and IMPARTIALITY yes, and mana, which such a position demands.

There are many, many ills here in NZ – concentrate on them before you try to lower our standards even more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 10:15am
Lewis

The key issue is checks and balances. The monarchy is constitutionally useless – neither the Sovereign or Governor-General can act in times of constitutional crisis. So this issue is worth worrying about.

The Sovereign never intervenes in times of crises in Her Majesty’s realms – witness Pakistan, Grenada, Sierre Leone and of course Fiji. The monarchy doesn’t make our democracy stable, we do. And we do a pretty good job, actually. Are we unable to choose our own head of state?

Certainly there is always the issue of who will be President – but we cannot assume that it would simply be a politician. Experience from parliamentary republics around the world actually suggests otherwise (The presidents of India, Latvia, Iceland for example).

For more, see the website… http://www.republic.org.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 10:23am
Hoolian

God that was the worst video I have ever seen. What a complete waste of time. “Its time he cheered for NZ”, what the fuck?

Seriously a waste of time watching. Next time DPF, do us all a favour and put up something that provokes intelligent thought.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 11:45am
Insolent Prick

I am a republican. I think in the long term, it is inevitable that we will develop our own constitutional arrangements to replace a British hereditary head of state.

But quite frankly, moving to a republic in the short-term will inevitably stir up massive amounts of public unease. There simply isn’t an overwhelming public desire to do that yet. I don’t think we wil have that overwhelming public desire until memories of the old diggers and emotional connection with Britain has faded.

There are far more pressing issues that the country needs to face up to much more urgently. The carcinogenic creep of socialism, the massive rise of the welfare state and the dominance of the state generally, and the oppressive burden of central and local government politicians who create mini empires to themselves at public cost.

Many republicans use a move to a republic as a distraction from the real issues of the day. Helen Clark would like nothing better than a big public debate about moving to a republic that will shout above any noise around how she is systematically invading individuals’ lives.

The republican argument will be held at some stage, but I am opposed to any further major short-term social changes until we’ve stamped out socialism for good.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 12:17pm
bob

I actually think that there is an advantage in having a non politically appointed ‘king’. Would you rather have Queen (or president) Helen?? OMG.

And also they pay for themselves (out of English taxpayers money), whereas Queen Helen would no doubt find (another) way to rort the NZ taxpayers.

Long live the king.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 12:43pm
David

I am not a monarchist, but I am also not a republican. I look at the Presidential systems used internationally, and so many are politicized and divisive. So I am not enamoured of either option, at the moment.

But how about this for an alternative … the Maori king (or queen) becomes the constitutional monarch of NZ. Certainly when the Maori Queen was alive, she commanded widespread respect, not because she was queen but because of the sort of person she was.

Just another alternative … It will be fun to see what sort of responses THIS gets! hee hee
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 2:17pm
CC Vince

Only in New Zealand:

Only in a country like New Zealand would the worry about a future king be shown by which rugby team he supports. While the monarchy is technically powerless (having studied the queen and her role) I think it is an active part of our history and our place in the world. I’m proud of my british ancestry and agree with the idea of not trying to fix a system that isn’t broken.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 2:44pm
Rex Widerstrom

Yep, I’m with CC Vince on this one. In fact I’d go further and say that getting emotional about a sporting fixture of any description indicates an IQ deficiency that ought to preclude the holding of any high office, even an honorary one 😉

But most importantly, think back… as long as you like, really. Back to the 70s, at least. Then name one single individual, living or dead, who’s floated to the top in the shallow pond of NZ public life and in whom you’d feel comfortable entrusting the powers of a President.

Ye gods we want to be emasculating the bastards as much as possible so they can do minimal harm to the rest of us, not giving them more power.

And if that means vesting imaginary authority in a twit who chases Sloanes and watches rugby, then wrap me in the Union Jack and call me John Bull.

Not that I think the monarchy is a sensible option, just that not enough people would take the time to properly understand the alternatives and choose the one that minimised the power of politicians. Look at the proportional representation referendum – MMP beat STV?!

Thus giving party leaders a fiefdom of lickspittle list MPs who’ll do anything for a high list rank. The polls at the time said people wanted to “punish” politicians… yet they did so by giving them more control over their caucuses than ever before, manipulated as they were by two carefully controlled and very well funded campaigns – one for FPP fronted by someone very few people liked or trusted (odd, that) and another for MMP that glossed over the obvious negatives (cue whatever conspiracy theory is your favourite here).

Could we really be trusted to choose a republican model that didn’t backfire as badly as MMP has done?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 3:02pm
Camryn

It’s great that the head of state is someone who had no say in the matter. Most presidents are glory-seeking and motivated by the advantages to themselves. It’s much safer to have a non-elected ceremonial head. Not to mention the various arguments above about it being cheaper… I can handle William cheering the Lions as long as British taxpayers cover the cost of everything 🙂

PS. I am a dual NZ and UK passport holder, so I’m probably never going to stop being a subject anyway… but it won’t stop me from trying to promote what I think is best for NZ: the status quo.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 5:14pm
peter

that is so dumb. Its like cantabrians saying they dont want helen clark for prime minister cos she doesnt support canterbury at sport. (I dont want Clark for prime minister but not for that reason.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 5:31pm
peter

that is so dumb. Its like cantabrians saying they dont want helen clark for prime minister cos she doesnt support canterbury at sport. (I dont want Clark for prime minister but not for that reason.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 5:34pm
peter

that is so dumb. Its like cantabrians saying they dont want helen clark for prime minister cos she doesnt support canterbury at sport. (I dont want Clark for prime minister but not for that reason.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 5:36pm
NX

Crasster said: chart our own course in the World with an indigenous head of state. It’s inevitable.

It’s inevitable or it’s invisible. Because that’s what a NZ head of state would be. Everyone knows the Royal family & there’s a kind of ‘familiarity breeds content’ associated with them.

It’s about growing up as an independent nation.

How do we know when we’ve grown up? Does New Zealand’s acne clear up & hair appears down there. Perhaps you could let us know…

The trouble with the republican argument is the opinion based statements above.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 5:56pm
Crasster

It’s amazing what you can see when you scratch the surface. There’s a real lack of faith in New Zealand as a nation shining through. The problem for lots of monarchists who traditionally sit on the political right is that there arguments end up sounding like unpatriotic cultural cringe. The only argument I can see for keeping the present arrangement is the “if it ain’t broke” – but that ignores all of the softer arguments about finding our own way in the World and removing some anachronistic ties. Because I understand the argument, I am not advocating kicking Her Majesty out of our constitution. But the accession of her gormless son certainly seems like an ideal opportunity to re-think this. Hell, Britain may well be doing the same thing too!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:16pm
Fred

A Mooooooori King perhaps? (Rhymes with Toooopo)

Life’s already subsidised, why would he bother?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:21pm
mavxp

Unless we go to war with Britain like the US did, or revolt like India, I dont see the point.
So many NZers, “white” and mixed maori/pakeha have ancestral ties to the UK. How many kiwis currently in the UK? I’d conservatively estimate around 100-150k at any given time, many of them with dual passports. Thats about the size of Hamilton.

I dont think we should be severing ties, however symbolic, with the UK & Europe. When our troops end up serving in some hell-hole in a future UN mission, chances are it will be alongside Australia, the UK, and the US. Which of those countries is more likely to give a damn about our guys? My money is on the UK.

Removing the monarchy for no real reason other than to promote some self-important NZ politician to be our president, -why?

NZ is a small country ~2.5hrs flying from Australia, and a hell of a long way from the rest of the world. We rely on our exports to survive. Casting ourselves further adrift like this seems like cutting off our noses to spite our face.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 7:49pm
NX

Crasster said: a real lack of faith in New Zealand as a nation shining through.

about finding our own way in the World

So… according to you; having a President means we can ‘shine through’ as a nation and find our way in the world.

I’m sorry Crasster they’re just meaningless slogans.

There are only 16 sovereign nations of the commonwealth in the world & I think it’s special for NZ to be counted as one of them. It adds to our identity. Otherwise we’d be just another boring republic. Especially when the USA dominates the culture of the English speaking world it’s nice to be different. The irony is that the yanks love the royals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 8:11pm
NX

mavxp said: I’d conservatively estimate around 100-150k at any given time, many of them with dual passports.

I heard that London could have as much as 250,000 New Zealanders.

Plus isn’t 1 in 5 immigrants to NZ British?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 8:16pm
Lewis

It’s absurd to suggest that republicanism will lead to a decline in military or trade links with Britain – after all, remember what happened in 1973? The most recent example of where constitutional status doesn’t matter was the evacuation of Lebanon last year – the Royal Navy evacuated NZers, Aussies and South Africans. South Africa has been a republic since 1961, and re-joined the Commonwealth in 1994. Today, the majority of members of the Commonwealth are republics.

Crasster is right – the only argument for keeping the monarchy is “It ain’t broke”. But the problem is, it is broke. Other comments have stated that the Sovereign is powerless, and that that is a good thing. If that’s the case, we should look seriously at what the point of our head of state is. Because a powerless head of state equates to a more powerful head of government – i.e. the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is exactly why our system is broken – the Sovereign or Governor-General cannot act as a check or balance. The parliamentary executive is, in the words of Lord Hailsham (who was a monarchist), an “elected dictatorship”. I for one think that is a good reason for change.

Secondly, there is something of an infantile fascination with the question of “Who will be President?”. There’s no reason to suggest that we won’t have the same calibre of New Zealanders serving as President as we do currently as Governor-General. As Crasster notes, it’s simply an issue of having confidence in ourselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 8:32pm
newt

Brilliant! And at least he’s the son of a New Zealander.

For those few who don’t know already…Dianna was shagging so many of her bodyguards that the boys could have been anybody’s, but the inside running has William’s dad as being a New Zealand police officer who was serving with the DPS.

Harry is Charles’ son, but he won’t get the job.

If Anne was next in line for the throne, I’d still be a Monarchist.

Vive la Republique.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 9:59pm
newt

Brilliant! And at least he’s the son of a New Zealander.

For those few who don’t know already…Dianna was shagging so many of her bodyguards that the boys could have been anybody’s, but the inside running has William’s dad as being a New Zealand police officer who was serving with the DPS.

Harry is Charles’ son, but he won’t get the job.

If Anne was next in line for the throne, I’d still be a Monarchist.

Vive la Republique.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 20, 2007 10:00pm
grumpyoldhori

Tana for President.

Oh,those not in favour will get a visit from the prop forwards club.
To give them all the reasons why
they should be.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 21, 2007 12:33am
ChrisB

Couldn’t care less either way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 21, 2007 11:29am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Oh well done

Ring-fencing housing losses »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Ian Bradford: Is any of the material we are fed by the climate alarmists’ reliable?
Breaking Views
"Late-Stage Anti-Capitalism"
Not PC
Coastal Court Action Flies Under the Radar
NZCPR
The Battle of Doiran – Turmoil In The French Army I THE GREAT WAR Week 144
Utopia
Cuddly
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Policing protests.
Kiwipolitico
Open letter to Hon Paul Goldsmith
Point of Order
The Working Group Weekend Politics with David Seymour, Chris Penk and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
This is fine
The Standard
THE WAY THINGS WERE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: