Prince William more qualified than New Zealand's top judge?

The Monarchist League, still absent from the Head of State Referenda Bill debate, has put out a short media release stating that Prince William is the "right" person to open the Supreme Court, three months before the event. Irony abounds - not only was the Chairman of the Monarchist League vehemently against the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which was not, as it was claimed, "republicanism by stealth"), the use of the third in line for the throne to open the court, a symbol of New Zealand's judicial independence from Britain, only goes to emphasise the absurdity of the monarchy.

The Supreme Court has been in operation for five years, and none of the dooms-day predictions made by those oppose to the institution have come true. Not even close. The League notes that William is "returning" to New Zealand, more accurately he's visiting since he lines in the United Kingdom, and:

"visits from members of our Royal family are always welcome, and to have the second in line to the New Zealand throne, is a great way to begin the new year."

The Royal family only ever seems to visit New Zealand during the summer months. Having visiting Britain in the depths of winter, it's understandable why! But really, this has nothing to do with the new year - it's about building support for William as King.

That a representative of New Zealand's Royal family presides over the opening is a powerful symbol of the independence of the Courts.

Firstly, there is no "New Zealand Royal Family". Secondly, a much more powerful symbol would be if the head of the judiciary - the Chief Justice - or perhaps the Queen's representative HE the Governor-General, who was also a district court judge. We fail to see how Prince William, a qualified air force pilot, is better qualified than either these eminent jurists.

Further, Professor Cox noted:

"Our Royal Family stands above partisan politics and remains one of the great constitutional strengths of New Zealand’s democracy."

Unqualified nonsense. I challenge Professor Cox to show us how the Royal family's alleged non-partisanship is a constitutional strength to New Zealand's democracy. What Professor Cox really means is that the Royal family is so removed an irrelevant to politicians in New Zealand, they are not a threat to them. That of course means that any claim that the Sovereign can act as a check on the Prime Minister and their cabinet is objectively false.