Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 6      1   2   3   4   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #1 
Republicanism in New Zealand is fueled by the desire for a resident for president. Establishing a separate Windsor monarchy in New Zealand, when Queen Elizabeth dies, will kill republicanism in New Zealand.
Lady Davina Windsor is the best choice for a resident monarch of New Zealand, because she has 2 children, who have a Maori father. Due to New Zealand's lack of a written constitution, changing the order of succession to the throne of New Zealand in order to make Lady Davina Queen of New Zealand, when Queen Elizabeth dies, only requires an Act of Parliament.
DISCLAIMER: Despite my support for New Zealand establishing a separate Windsor monarchy, I'm not opposed to New Zealand sharing its monarch with Great Britain. If a republic referendum is held in New Zealand, in which continued personal union with Great Britain is the only monarchist option on the ballot, I will support continued personal union with Great Britain. But New Zealand becoming a republic is sadly inevitable, if a separate Windsor monarchy isn't established, because most New Zealanders want a resident head of state. Queen Elizabeth being universally respected has postponed the inevitable end of the personal union of New Zealand with Great Britain. According to opinion polls, a clear majority of the New Zealanders want to abolish the monarchy, when Queen Elizabeth dies.
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #2 
But they have a resident Head of State in the G-G. I am not one to glibly toss tradition aside and would prefer that NZ and the UK remain in personal  union but if it is a choice between a political head of state and a resident royal family then I say go for the resident Queen.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Horthy
But they have a resident Head of State in the G-G. I am not one to glibly toss tradition aside and would prefer that NZ and the UK remain in personal  union but if it is a choice between a political head of state and a resident royal family then I say go for the resident Queen.

It's true, that the Governor-General is the de facto head of state of New Zealand, but the republicans claim to oppose the monarchy, because they want a resident head of state. Electing a resident monarch will make it far more difficult to oppose the monarchy. Republicanism in the Commonwealth realms are fueled by nationalism, which is why the Commonwealth realms are far more vulnerable than the monarchy of Great Britain and the monarchies of Europe. To me, opposing having the British monarch as head of state of the Commonwealth realms doesn't make any sense, unless you are Maori, Australian Aboriginal or French Canadian, but it's a sad fact, that a lot of Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians of Anglo-Celtic origin are opposed to the British monarchy due to nationalism. I expect Australia and New Zealand to become republics, when Queen Elizabeth dies. The Canadian monarchy may survive the death of Queen Elizabeth, because the monarchy makes Canada different from USA.
Is there any public support for making Lady Davina Queen, when Queen Elizabeth dies, in New Zealand?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,100
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Is there any public support for making Lady Davina Queen, when Queen Elizabeth dies, in New Zealand?

I don't suppose any New Zealander has given the idea a moment's consideration. More generally, I don't believe the end of monarchy in all the Realms bar Britain upon the passing of the present Queen is nearly as inevitable as you seem to think. And vigorously touting this as inevitable and spewing out ideas to counter it, as you have done in multiple posts (some of them posted multiply, just in case they'd been overlooked the first time) seems to me more than a little disrespectful of the Prince of Wales, who is after all heir apparent in each and every Realm.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I don't suppose any New Zealander has given the idea a moment's consideration. More generally, I don't believe the end of monarchy in all the Realms bar Britain upon the passing of the present Queen is nearly as inevitable as you seem to think. And vigorously touting this as inevitable and spewing out ideas to counter it, as you have done in multiple posts (some of them posted multiply, just in case they'd been overlooked the first time) seems to me more than a little disrespectful of the Prince of Wales, who is after all heir apparent in each and every Realm.

I don't intend to be disrespectful of Prince Charles. I actually admire Prince Charles, and I agree with him on climate change, GMO food and architecture. Prince Charles will be a magnificent king of England and Scotland. But the survival of the monarchy depends on public support, and Prince Charles lack popular support. The British monarchy will likely survive the lack of public support for Prince Charles, but the Antipodean monarchies are a different matter, because they are very vulnerable due to the strong desire for a resident for president. 
I don't understand, why monarchists in New Zealand won't consider making Lady Davina Queen of New Zealand. I thought, that Kiwi monarchists would love having a monarch of Maori descent. 
If a European prince married a Kurdish woman, I would definitely support electing that prince Shah of Kurdistan.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,100
Reply with quote  #6 
Trying to deprive him of fifteen thrones seems an odd way of showing admiration. And while the Diana-worshipping fraternity, or rather sorority, are never going to have any time for the Prince, most of us are either over that affliction or never suffered it in the first place. He is not nearly as unpopular as you appear to think. There is also the point that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very popular indeed. And if you lose him, you lose them. Finally, when a reign ends there is not a pause while people scratch their heads over whether to have a new monarch and if so who it should be. They already have one, in all the Realms, in this case Charles III. So it would be a case of unseating a reigning monarch, not filling a vacancy, in circumstances where he and indeed most of the world are grieving the loss of his mother. Both inertia and human sympathy are powerful forces in political affairs, though sadly the former rather more than the latter. All in all, the winds would not entirely be set against a successful reign, and in more countries than Britain alone.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Trying to deprive him of fifteen thrones seems an odd way of showing admiration. And while the Diana-worshipping fraternity, or rather sorority, are never going to have any time for the Prince, most of us are either over that affliction or never suffered it in the first place. He is not nearly as unpopular as you appear to think. There is also the point that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very popular indeed. And if you lose him, you lose them. Finally, when a reign ends there is not a pause while people scratch their heads over whether to have a new monarch and if so who it should be. They already have one, in all the Realms, in this case Charles III. So it would be a case of unseating a reigning monarch, not filling a vacancy, in circumstances where he and indeed most of the world are grieving the loss of his mother. Both inertia and human sympathy are powerful forces in political affairs, though sadly the former rather more than the latter. All in all, the winds would not entirely be set against a successful reign, and in more countries than Britain alone.

I don't support depriving him of fifteen thrones. I will definitely prefer Prince Charles becoming king of Australia and New Zealand to Australia and New Zealand becoming republics. In addition, I expect some of the smaller Commonwealth realms such as Belize, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu to keep the personal union with Great Britain. The Canadian monarchy may survive the death of Queen Elizabeth, because many Canadians support the monarchy in order to differentiate Canada from USA.
But the monarchies of Australia and New Zealand sadly appear to be doomed. An entire continent abolishing its monarchy will make me sad, and I will definitely support establishing a separate Windsor monarchy in order to avoid it. According to a recent opinion poll, 55 % of New Zealanders want the next head of state to be a New Zealander, while 39 % of New Zealanders want the next head of state to be the British monarchs. 76 % of New Zealanders aged 18-30 want the next head of state to be a New Zealander, and 80 % of Maoris want the next head of state to be a New Zealander. 

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,100
Reply with quote  #8 
If you don't support it, perhaps you should cease recommending different ways for it to happen. And recommending is not too strong a word on the present thread, you seem to think it a no-brainer that Lady Davina rather than the Prince should succeed, and wonder why the stupid New Zealanders haven't gone for it already.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,045
Reply with quote  #9 
Proposing anything other than the present royals or asking to skip a generation will be frowned upon by members on this forum.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Proposing anything other than the present royals or asking to skip a generation will be frowned upon by members on this forum.

Establishing a new monarchy under a cadet branch of the dynasty of the country, which previously ruled your country, is hardly unprecedented. When Norway seceded from the union with Sweden in 1905, it elected a Danish prince King of Norway. Norway was ruled by the kings of Denmark until 1814. When Brazil seceded from Portugal in 1822, it elected a Portuguese prince Emperor of Brazil. I supporting electing an Osmanoglu Shah of Kurdistan, because the Osmanoglus ruled Kurdistan until 1918 (I know, that it's extremely unlikely to happen).
But I will under no circumstances support establishing republics in Australia and New Zealand, and if republic referendums, in which the only options are keeping the personal union with Great Britain and establishing a republic, are held in Australia and New Zealand, I will support keeping the personal union with Great Britain.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,100
Reply with quote  #11 
Your precedents don't work well. While it is true that Norway was in personal union with Denmark until 1814, from then until 1905 it was in personal union with Sweden. The election of Prince Carl of Denmark was a rejection of the ruling dynasty not an affirmation of it. And Pedro I of Brazil was not a Portuguese prince, he was the Portuguese prince, Prince of Brazil and heir apparent to the throne. Frederick III of Sicily would work better, he replaced his brother James II, King of Aragón, whom the Sicilians rejected because they were unhappy with his policies. That was in 1295, ending the first personal union with Aragón which had begun in 1282. Earlier in Spanish history it was commonplace for a king to divide his kingdom (or kingdoms, if he had managed to collect several of the Iberian realms under himself) between his sons. And as commonplace for the sons to engage in fratricidal warfare until the last one left standing had got everything for himself. This undesirable feature gradually brought an end to the practice, which had also been followed by the Merovingians and Carolingians.

Immediate fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire also did this, as did Poland, which actually led to the breakup of the entire country into little dukedoms, with usually no king at all. And Rurikid Russia. I could go on and on, but what I can't do is think of an example in anything like recent history that directly compares to your proposal. Before anyone brings it up, Maria II of Portugal is not one. Her brother Pedro II of Brazil was ineligible for the Portuguese throne, having been born outside the realm, and Maria II was actually immediate heir in Portugal to their father Pedro I of Brazil/IV of Portugal.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Your precedents don't work well. While it is true that Norway was in personal union with Denmark until 1814, from then until 1905 it was in personal union with Sweden. The election of Prince Carl of Denmark was a rejection of the ruling dynasty not an affirmation of it. And Pedro I of Brazil was not a Portuguese prince, he was the Portuguese prince, Prince of Brazil and heir apparent to the throne. Frederick III of Sicily would work better, he replaced his brother James II, King of Aragón, whom the Sicilians rejected because they were unhappy with his policies. That was in 1295, ending the first personal union with Aragón which had begun in 1282. Earlier in Spanish history it was commonplace for a king to divide his kingdom (or kingdoms, if he had managed to collect several of the Iberian realms under himself) between his sons. And as commonplace for the sons to engage in fratricidal warfare until the last one left standing had got everything for himself. This undesirable feature gradually brought an end to the practice, which had also been followed by the Merovingians and Carolingians.

Immediate fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire also did this, as did Poland, which actually led to the breakup of the entire country into little dukedoms, with usually no king at all. And Rurikid Russia. I could go on and on, but what I can't do is think of an example in anything like recent history that directly compares to your proposal. Before anyone brings it up, Maria II of Portugal is not one. Her brother Pedro II of Brazil was ineligible for the Portuguese throne, having been born outside the realm, and Maria II was actually immediate heir in Portugal to their father Pedro I of Brazil/IV of Portugal.

It's true, that Norway electing a Danish prince King of Norway in 1905 was a restoration of a previously ruling dynasty rather than a continuation of the current dynasty. My proposed Ottoman restoration in Kurdistan is actually inspired by the Oldenburg restoration in Norway. You're right about Brazil, but Emperor Pedro I being the heir apparent to the throne of Portugal doesn't really matter. What matters is the fact, that Brazil and Portugal were ruled by different monarchs belonging to the same dynasty (the Braganzas) from 1822 to 1889. If Australia and New Zealand wants to establish separate monarchies, a Windsor monarch is definitely the best option.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 810
Reply with quote  #13 
I will only support establishing resident Windsor monarchies, if it weakens Antipodean republicanism. If attempting to establish resident Windsor monarchies helps Antipodean republicanism, I will support the status quo.
But I consider the status quo unsustainable, because Antipodean republicanism is fueled by nationalism. In Great Britain and in Europe, monarchism is fueled by nationalism, because a monarchy embodies the history and traditions of a nation, but in Australia and New Zealand, the monarchy is widely considered foreign. I personally consider the claim, that the British monarchy is foreign to Australia and New Zealand, ridiculous, because the non-indigenous cultural heritage of Australia and New Zealand is of British origin, and the Australian Aboriginals and the Maori are after all minorities, and the Maori voluntarily swore allegiance to Queen Victoria in the Treaty of Waitangi. But even if it's ridiculous, Antipodean monarchists must deal with the fact, that the British monarchy is considered foreign by many Aussies and Kiwis. Republicans wouldn't be able to reasonably claim, that resident Windsor monarchs of Australia and New Zealand are foreign. Separate Windsor monarchies of Australia and New Zealand will be able to embody the history and traditions of Australia and New Zealand.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,100
Reply with quote  #14 
Your #13 is not a new post. It was originally contained in your #12, but you removed it from there and put it in a separate post because no one had replied to it originally and you hoped to draw more attention to your arguments. You do this kind of thing all the time, and it is very irritating. If people didn't reply to your original post, it was probably because they didn't see anything worth replying to. In my case, I read what you said the first time and it was nothing I hadn't responded to before on this very thread. Why should I respond to it again? And I am annoyed to have to read your arguments and find yet again they were what I had already read before. Please give up this habit, it doesn't help your cause at all, quite the reverse.
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 59
Reply with quote  #15 
Being completely realistic the chances of establishing a new monarchy, let alone reestablishing
a deposed one, is extremely unlikely in the 21st century.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.