Twilight of the monarchist elites
David Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy takes aim at Sir Robert Jones' support for a republic, making the predictable arguments against his status as an "elite", his knighthood and Sir Bob's view that New Zealand should change its name.
As usual Professor Flint makes a false attribution of Sir Robert's views on New Zealand's name to the Republican Movement generally. We have no policy on changing New Zealand's name, and most of our members are comfortable with New Zealand and the increasing use of "Aotearoa" as a Maori alternative. Even Monarchy New Zealand, in an attempt to be modern, uses "Aotearoa" liberally. It's as ridiculous as the Republican Movement suggesting a single member of the the Monarchist League's views on waving Union Flags for Prince William represents an official policy on there part. We didn't, because it doesn't.
Meanwhile there's the usual "elites" contention, despite the simple that the politician's monarchy is by definition an elite institution. Of course, this claim is really a groan that these so-called "elites" don't support the politician's monarchy anymore. In the 50s it would've been inconceivable that a knight would support it's abolition. Professor Flint's real problem is that he's stuck with elites such as retired Queen's Counsel or Jason Donovan and Clive James, hardly inspiring or motivating elites for the monarchy.
Finally, there's Professor Flint's tiresome claims about plebiscites, taking aim at the Head of State Referenda Bill's proposed referendums:
As usual Professor Flint makes a false attribution of Sir Robert's views on New Zealand's name to the Republican Movement generally. We have no policy on changing New Zealand's name, and most of our members are comfortable with New Zealand and the increasing use of "Aotearoa" as a Maori alternative. Even Monarchy New Zealand, in an attempt to be modern, uses "Aotearoa" liberally. It's as ridiculous as the Republican Movement suggesting a single member of the the Monarchist League's views on waving Union Flags for Prince William represents an official policy on there part. We didn't, because it doesn't.
Meanwhile there's the usual "elites" contention, despite the simple that the politician's monarchy is by definition an elite institution. Of course, this claim is really a groan that these so-called "elites" don't support the politician's monarchy anymore. In the 50s it would've been inconceivable that a knight would support it's abolition. Professor Flint's real problem is that he's stuck with elites such as retired Queen's Counsel or Jason Donovan and Clive James, hardly inspiring or motivating elites for the monarchy.
Finally, there's Professor Flint's tiresome claims about plebiscites, taking aim at the Head of State Referenda Bill's proposed referendums:
Unfortuantely [SIC] these are not real referendums as the Swiss or the Australians would understand them. Rather they are plebiscites, the sort of device the two Napoleons liked.Absolute nonsense. If Professor Flint, who embarrassingly used to be a law professor, had attempted to read the Head of State Referenda Bill, he would've seen that the detail of how the models are to be implemented is clearly spelled out in the Bill. Of course, that would require some actual research, rather than spouting the same old tired arguments of 1999. On that count we can be glad Profressor Flint is still in charge of the ACM, dividing monarchists as he goes.
The difference is that with a referendum, the details are on the table before the people vote. With a plebiscite, the details are filled in later.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
" In the 50s it would've been inconceivable that a knight would support it's abolition."
Perhaps, back in the 50's personal integrity had greater influence and meant potential recipients would refuse a Knighthoods in the British Empire in the name of the Queen if they were in fact republicans.
Maybe Bob Jones should hand back his Knighthood in the British Empire or at the very least make it known that he would like to drop the honorific "Sir". Being called a "Sir" seems to indicate a desire to participate, in a very overt way, in the structure and hierarchy of the British Monarchy. Could it be that Bob Jones enjoys the cachet and impact that his title brings?
Arguably yes, that's true. But since 1996 New Zealand's honours have had no association with their British equivalents, despite the same titles being used... (interestingly the Key govt "restoration" is actually voluntary only). Minor point I know, and I can't figure out when he got his knighthood (I assume it was prior to his split with Sir Robert Muldoon though).
The interesting thing about Bob Jones is that he refers to himself as "Bob Jones" in his books post-Knighthood. If it was really a big selling point I suspect he'd use it more - albeit the media refer to him as either "Sir Robert" or "Sir Bob".
True, it would get publicity, as would the prospect of the show of many MPs refusing to take the oath to the Queen ..
Also, it would be a counter-balance to those who jumped - or should I say -ducked at the chance to get the newly restored NZ knighthood.
Given New Zealand's own constitutional history, knighthood seems to me to be one particularly apposite form of recognition. It isn't hereditary. But it continues one of our traditions.
I think we tend to lose sight of the devolutionary role the Crown has played in our national story. It has provided us with a coherent rationale for stable government and continuing political development. And t isn't an impediment to a orderly transition to a republic.
It will be a great pity if the debate degenerates into a slanging match about personalities. When the change comes, as it surely will, it needs to be made with grace and style.
I think the French Legion d'Honneur founded in their republican era by Napoleon has a chevalier class. From memory, it is quite a junior class in the order and I do not think it carries a title.
NZ Knighthoods, via the Imperial knighthoods, are a direct descendant of the Anglo-Norman Knights, who were a part of the feudal system. I consider NZ has the advantage (compared to the UK) of having the monarch alone without an aristocracy. I support honours but do not see the need to retain even life-time titles. I think Canada did away with titles in the 1920s and to this day disallows its citizens to receive honours carrying a title from other commonwealth realms.
A quick search reveals the fuss PM Chretien made over the honouring of a dual Canadian-UK citizen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1395570.stm
All I think is that we should now have a New Zealander as head of state, not just as a delegate - and that in our own circumstances, once we get to that point, we are in practical terms talking about an elected president.
I don't think it follows that we need be driven by cold - dare I say it, Stalinist - logic to eliminate every link with our past history. What I like about keeping knighthoods is that this keeps one of the traditions and part of the colour in our public life. And I can't see any harm at all in it.
I am not sure that UK republicans would agree with you that the House of Windsor could not be extracted from either the British constituent cultures or constitution. I do appreciate the evolutionary argument behind republicanism too.
However, I am not sure if most republicans are against Monarchy as a concept or against the current monarchy in NZ simply because it is not of NZ origin or residence. There would be some republicans against the monarchy on both the NZ nationalist and conceptual "res publica" grounds. I imagine the solely local nationalist republicans or anti-UK-royalty republicans would be the ones who would be more open to retaining titles (such as Sir and Dame) provided that the Head of the vestigial feudal structure was either a solely NZ Monarch or NZ President as opposed to a Sovereign based in London.
The monarchy is not relevant to nz but the westminster system had delivered stable government, However it is down to our anglo-celtic heritage that we have this stability. As we become more multicultural and non anglo our westminster system works agains us as etnocentric attitudes unknown to us will prevail. Thats why we need a watertight constitution and president to protect our freedoms and abuse of power.
Our culture is our stability not the queen, However most republicans want cultural change like an asian union as most republicans are leftwing marxists.
And yes, I think you're no doubt right that New Zealanders who favour a republic for "national" reasons are more likely to be comfortable with the retention of personal titles. But even for those of us who fall into the national group, once NZ decides to become a republic, I'm sure the concepts of kingship and hereditary succession will cease to be viable options.
I do understand and agree with Dan's point that the ultimate source of our political stability has been our own social culture. However, along the way I think public sentiment for the monarch of the day and the concept of "the Crown" have provided cement, making the process of devolution that much steadier.
In particular, to a lawyer, the notion of "the Crown" has provided one basis (not the only one, certainly) for a reasoned, coherent and detached theory of the country's political base. (I'm not suggesting at all that lawyers should lead on constitutional development. But I do think they play a part in helping to give the political will of the country shape and order.)
[http://www.republican.org.nz].
Might I suggest that RMANZ see if the domain name is free and then annex it if it is, to avoid any further confusion by those who are ignorant about the actual (if now happily academic) distinction between it and the RONZP (RIP).
I was writing from the point of view of the granting nation....The UK and NZ allow Commonwealth citizens (eg from Canada and Australia) to use the titles whereas recipients from non-commonwealth countries are not allowed by the awarding nation to use titles. So the Canadian policy against titles only comes into play because Canada is still a commonwealth country. Even those titles in the Queen's personal gift come into play. The Queen of Canada will award notable Canadians with the Royal Victorian Chain (which does not carry a title) as opposed to the Order of the Garter or Thistle (which carry titles).
Interestingly, certain French orders and titles inherited by Quebecois are protected by treaty and were further personally recognised by Queen Victoria and are exempt from the current Canadian ban on titles.
Dr. Nes
Since 1947 (date?) when NZ and Australian citizenship devolved from British subjects, I wonder what proportion of garter and thistle recipients have been from NZ and Australia. Those orders whilst being within the Queen' personal gift are still UK (English and Scottish respectively) orders after all. Indeed, I wonder how many Scots have been appointed to the English Order of the Garter.
I guess on a purely current population basis one would expect 4.8% of non-royal order appointees to be from NZ being NZ's share of HM's non-Canadian subjects. Of course, since 1947 HM's non-UK subjects have gown much more rapidly in numbers than her UK subjects, so since 1947 one would expect fewer than 4.8% of appointees to be NZers.
2010 Population of HM's realms excluding Canada:
62,000,000 UK
22,200,000 Australia
4,400,000 NZ
3,400,000 All others (est.)
------------------------
92,000,000 Total
There have been 95 Knights of the Garter appointed since 1947, of those 3 have been NZers. About 3.5% of the appointees post 1947 have been NZers..probably more than the average of our population since 1947 would warrant - not bad considering many appointees are royal (UK and foreign) or aristocratic. The statement "(and appoints Britons only, with very few exceptions)" does not seem to bear out to examination at least as far as NZers are concerned.
See: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/garterlist.htm
Sure, "the Crown" has been useful in that symbolic regard - but it's also created an awful lot of confusion when it comes to Treaty issues, and in particular settlements. I've had people tell me the settlements would become invalid should New Zealand become a republic - despite the fact that it's well known (at least in contractual law) that responsibilities carry over to new parties.
Yes, I understand that some people see the Crown in a very personal, mystical, call it what you will light. And that the legal view is an abstract one that does not take into account the human sense of loyalty and affection that a monarch of the day will tend to engender.
I do think it is overstating things to say that the concept of the Crown has caused "an awful lot of confusion". It has and will always have been part of our evolving history, and has served us well.
But do most of us really think in 2010 that the next head of state need not be a New Zealander? Isn't it time for this debate to move forward?
P.S. Buzzy Bee??? As John McEnroe might say.......................................
David H
(It's still doing it.)
When the trend is for countries to come together in various cross-border ventures, nationalist republicans think it is inappropriate to share a Head of State in personal union with other predominantly English speaking countries? Maybe some internationalist republicans consider it is inappropriate to share a head of state with our cultural commonwealth siblings because our trade is increasingly with Asian countries such as China and our defence lies (or used to lie) with the republican USA?
Whatever the arguments, if a republic comes, it will be difficult for some (especially older) NZers to divert their emotional attachment from British Commonwealth Queen and country to solely NZ (and perhaps more Asia-Pacific orientated) President and country.
Post new comment