By this acceptance of the terms of the treaty, Hobson felt justified in concluding that such action “must be deemed a full and clear recognition of the sovereign-rights of Her Majesty over the northern parts of this land ….” This explains why he signed the treaty as “Consul and Lieutenant Governor” since the cession concerned the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />northern territory only. Thus the treaty signed on 6 February 1840 was but one of many steps in the “progressive acquisition of sovereignty”, for the cession of the whole of New Zealand, as Hobson realised, had to be won by instalments. With this in mind, Hobson was at the Waitemata on 21 February, but sudden illness ruined his plans. He therefore provided certain officials and missionaries with signed copies of the text of the treaty, and commissioned them to secure the signatures of the chiefs in districts hitherto uncanvassed. When, moreover, Major Thomas Bunbury arrived at the Bay of Islands from New South Wales in April 1840, he was sent as far south as Stewart Island in quest of signatures. But before Bunbury had time to return, Hobson forced the issue by proclaiming on 21 May 1840 that, by virtue of the rights and powers ceded to the Crown by the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereignty of the Queen was established over the whole of the North Island. At the same time he proclaimed the authority of the Queen over the South Island and Stewart Island, on the grounds of discovery. These actions were subsequently approved by the British Government. When Hobson's dispatch of 25 May 1840, with its enclosures, reached London, the proclamations were published in the London Gazette of 2 October. The British title to sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand was then beyond legal question; it was an accomplished fact.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

(http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/W/WaitangiTreatyOf/Preliminaries/en)

Excuse me....was not sovereignty and governorship - Kawanatanga vested in the british Crown. Did Maori not get the benefits and obligations of being British subjects. Even if some words are disputed. It sounds like they accepted the governorship of the British Crown to me.

Are you suggesting that we have a dual or even multiple Head of State....one for Maori and one for The Rest Of US. Even under a wonderful new republic the President would be seen as stemming from the British side of the treaty, the inheritor of the British Crown's obligations.