Submitted by LJ Holden on 12 August, 2010 - 20:14
Just how much time has the Queen spent "reigning" in each of her realms? Why is this question relevant to anything, you ask. Well it seems the monarchists love spinning the nonsense line that the monarchy is "shared". The reality is the monarchy is still very much the British monarchy. Thankfully, the website of the British monarchy once again provides the answers.
It seems out of the 21,357 days of the Queen's reign (58 years and 187 days as at today), 20,607 days have been spent in the United Kingdom, 216 in Canada, 210 in other countries (including Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries), 187 in Australia and 137 in New Zealand. Interestingly, it seems the Queen has toured the "settler" realms much more than any other.
So, whenever the monarchists try to tell us the monarchy is shared, let's remember the Queen has been resident in the United Kingdom for at least 97% of her reign. Of that, the Queen has acted as Queen of New Zealand for 0.006% of her reign.
Amount of time the Queen has spent in each Commonwealth realm:
|
-
UK 20,607
- Australia 187
- NZ 137
- Canada 216
- Other 210
- Total reign:
|
|
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Just how much time has the Queen spent "reigning" in each of her realms?
The Queen continues to reign in each of her realms whether physically present or not. I know some people regard specifics as irrevant. I presume you meant to ask how much time has the Queen spent "reigning" whilst she has been physically present in each of her realms. I am sure current communications systems keep her informed whenever the Governor-general or PM need to be in touch.
Sure, the Queen reigns, cabinet rules... but again you miss the point that the Queen isn't "shared" as has been claimed.
That's a good point. I'd expect the totals to be much less in that analysis, as far as I can tell the Queen has only signed three pieces of New Zealand legislation (Royal Titles Act 1953, Royal Titles Act 1974 and the Tainui Raupatu Act 1995) into law and made all the appointments of Governors-General (10 since 1952), three letters patent revisions (1983, 85 and 2006) and a couple of Orders-in-Council, plus appointments to the Privy Council... bugger all really.
Well not according to anecdotal evidence - Sir Paul Reeves wrote letters to the Queen informing her of the government's actions, and received responses from... her private secretary. As Rudman says, talk about sad.
Your argument makes no sense according the accepted definition of reign. Do you actually mean "how long has the queen actively participated in NZ government decisions while present in NZ?" rather than reigning? If that is the case, I agree with your summation. After all, she is a non-executive sovereign with a G-G in NZ.
Anecdotal evidence...is that another way of saying "unofficial leaks, rumour and gossip"?
Well, my dictionary says "To possess or exercise sovereign power or authority; to exercise government, as a king or emperor." So sure, the Queen possess sovereign power, but the Governor-General actually exercises it, to the point that the Queen's position is constitutionally redundant.
Certainly that aligns with the statistics above. However, I think you were trying to say that since the Queen's been in office for 54 years, therefore she's been "reigning" over New Zealand for that length of time. That's great but it wasn't the point I made.
The point is that it's often claimed the Queen of New Zealand is "shared" amongst the Commonwealth realms. What the statistics show is that position is absurd - the Queen is resident in the United Kingdom acting as their head of state 97% of the time, with the remainder divided amongst the Queen's three
white'big' realms and other countries. Whichever way you cut it, the 'shared' argument is nonsense.As above. A constitutionally useless appendix in the body politic.
I don't think verbatim statements from the Governor-General are unofficial leaks, rumour or gossip. I think a former Anglican archbishops like Sir Paul Reeves are fairly trustworthy... Peter Hollingworth excepted.
So it looks like we are in agreement. In NZ, 24/7, the sovereign is Queen Elizabeth II, who reigns in NZ whether she is physically present or not. She has not actively taken part in the executive decision-making of the NZ government. This is how it has always been. Even the staunch monarchists would not expect otherwise.
We do not have an aristocracy based on inherited wealth, titles and positions - although we do have an elite based on inherited wealth. The Queen alone is the only person who has inherited a constituional position in NZ. As far as assets are concerned: those assets she uses in NZ are owned by HM's NZ Government.
Oh Bill, what are we to do with you? You're clearly bent out of shape by the fact that the British Monarchy website provided the basis of this post, which obliterates the claim the monarchy is shared. Hence, you focus on red herrings of no relevance to this post in an attempt to try and reclaim something for the monarchy...
Um, no.
See the definition of "reign" above - which is from a dictionary - clearly as I've pointed out above it's the Governor-General who "reigns" in the absence of the Queen. Your "24/7" comment implies that the Queen undertakes her role as Queen of New Zealand from the UK, which is simply not true.
Sure - but therein lies the contradiction to your first statement. How can the Queen's "reign" be described as such on the facts above? It can't, except in a narrow legal lexicon. Which of course all monarchists depend on to justify the existence of the institution.
Sure, which we've seen you really really don't like, to the point where you'd rather have the UK's most elite family reigning over you.
So where does that leave poor old Prince William then? A few months ago you were arguing that the entire Royal family is part of the institution. Which is it Bill? Either way, the Queen's "constitutional" position is virtually non-existent. It's a symbolic position: it symbolises aristocracy, inherited political power over power acquired on merit, that New Zealand was a colony of Britian... but apparently these things pale compared with the evil wealthy elite of New Zealand. I mean, it's terrible that the Todds, Fletchers and Harts dominate our politics...
Sure. But you can't escape the fact that a great number of New Zealanders don't have the things available to the "Queen of New Zealand", or won't admit to it... your statement that the Government Houses are "state houses" was a lame attempt at trying to equate the Queen to the Prime Minister's background.
However, here's a statement I could agree with:
In NZ, 24/7, the sovereign is Queen Elizabeth II, who is "Queen of New Zealand", a position that is largely a legal fiction as it is the Governor-General of New Zealand who exercises all executive power on the Prime Minister's advice. The Queen's role is constitutionally useless, and she has not actively taken
part in the executive decision-making of the NZ government.
We do not have an aristocracy based on inherited
wealth, titles and positions, but the Queen's position, however constitutionally useless, symbolises these things. We do have an elite based on
inherited wealth, albeit without inherited political power, hence comparing the Fletchers to the Windsors is ridiculous. The Queen alone is the only person who has inherited a constitutional position in NZ, although depending on visiting Royals at the New Zealand taxpayer's expense, monarchists will modify this argument to suit. The taxpayer also makes available to the Queen of New Zealand - who has spent a grand total of 0.006% of her "reign" in New Zealand - multi-million dollar mansions in Auckland and Wellington, which are otherwise empty and redundant, much like the monarchy itself.
You both seem to be arguing without reason. The Queen is a figurehead with little or no exercised power in New Zealand. She is a tradition, like Christmas, wholly unnecessary, but still cherished by many. She is part of our past and whether you like it or not, she is part of who we are as a nation. For now anyway.
I consider myself a Republican, but this is something we need to move towards as a nation and the fact that you can still have a debate like the one above just shows that this country is not ready to take that step. There would need to be overwhelming public support, say 80% before I would back a move to form a republic and then only if they stayed clear of the terrible system they use in the USA. What we have now is preferable.
However, L J Holden is doing us all a favour by spreading the word and informing people of the reasons why we should head towards a republic.
Fair call.
Your sentiments are very much in line with the thinking of most New Zealanders Adrian. I don't think Christmas is wholly unnecessary though - it's the antipodean equivalent to thanksgiving, it brings families together.
Neither myself or anyone involved in the Republican Movement has ever denied the Queen and monarchy were a part of our past. The "part of who we are as a nation" bit is disputable though. I suspect Bill would say the monarchy is at the core of who we are, I'd say it's at the periphery, and only because there are many still alive who remember the Queen's military service and when our links to Britain were more than just historic (i.e. cultural, military and economic, both of which now scarcely exist, mainly at Britain's own direction).
Exactly. It's going to be a long road to that 80%, which is exactly why the republican movement won't give in. Sadly these sorts of debates are necessary, as it is necessary to dismiss the nonsense put out in defence of the monarchy. In this case, that the Queen is a "shared" head of state, when that's not true in any practical sense.
Agreed. You'll be pleased to know that our own research shows minimal support for a US style President and congressional system. All proposals to date for a New Zealand republic have been parliamentary republics, i.e. retaining our current parliamentary system with a non-executive head of state.
Thanks! :-D