Brian Anderton of New Zealand Monarchy nominated Queen Elizabeth II on the President of New Zealand website. Fair enough - Brian's a staunch monarchist, so you'd expect such a nomination. With Brian's permission, we've reproduced his explanation of the nomination below, as it is perhaps the best example of a "Elizabethan" argument for the monarchy:

This nation has been very, very fortunate to have had a Head of State of the calibre of the Queen, and even more fortunate to have enjoyed her reign for as long as we have, and will be a loss if we lose this. It is not enough to praise her quiet, constant, unassuming and diligent performance of her duty; - she has given her life to her country and people. We should also acknowledge her positive deep-seated devotion to her people and her nation. With Her Majesty we have a Head of state who is highly respected for her professionalism, dignity and example, and who can bring, and pass down her many years of good experience, this nation has still a great blessing for which we should be truly grateful.

The reasoning above is totally consistent. After all, the monarchy But on one point the issue falls over: when Brian states that the Queen has "given her life to her country and people". That's the problem - the Queen isn't actually New Zealand's. It is no different from a situation where Nelson Mandela was President of New Zealand and South Africa, but spent all of his time in South Africa, undertook charity work in South Africa, and represented South Africa overseas. Such a situation would be absurd, just like the monarchy in New Zealand is.

The Republican Movement has said this a thousand times, but it remains true: the Queen might be Queen of New Zealand, but Her Majesty is not a New Zealand Queen. All of the argument fpr the monarchy based on the Queen's ability to act as a figurehead or neutral head of State, and someone who can set an example for New Zealand falls over on this point.