Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Lead balance

This is a nicely presented article that can be improved, without major work, to B-class.

Suggestions

The lead has three paragraphs and could use a fourth. The Debate section offers that there are conflicting sides to the Monarchy, even though apparently not on a major national scale, nonetheless for balance this can and should be included. In other words there should be some alternative points offered so it does not look like an article "approved" by the Queen. Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Sir or not to Sir?

I noticed Pokelova you have changed the name of Bill English, as PM, to Sir Bill. I think this is an anachronism and probably should not have happened, because he was not Sir Bill when PM, which is relevant in this article. The problem though is greater than that because all the previous PMs have been given their post-PM titles. I expect this inappropriate naming has occurred in many NZ articles so I thought I'd comment here to try to get some form of consensus before changing names everywhere. Any thoughts welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, but took no action because I could see that previous prime ministers were similarly treated. I suspect but am not sure that the title should not be applied to situations before it was granted, but I'd like to see someone more knowledgable than myself confirm that.-gadfium 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'First monarch'?

Queen Victoria is listed as the first monarch to reign over New Zealand (the British colony dating from 1841). Conversely, the infobox gives Edward VII as the first monarch. Perhaps Victoria should be listed instead. The date at which the British monarch became the independent New Zealand monarch is unclear; does it date from Dominion status, from the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, or from 1952 when Elizabeth II became "Queen of New Zealand"? For the time being, I have removed reference to a "first monarch" and "formation" from the infobox, as is the case on monarchy of Canada. I realise that the infobox is now rather bare of information, so I would appreciate some input. --Hazhk (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the logic of the article, the "New Zealand" monarchy didn't come about until the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 (which is legally true), so I'm not sure why we would then go back to Victoria. --HuttValley (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I guess the issue is the association of New Zealand with the British monarchy began with the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, and then over the 100 years from there the constitutional changes that occurred. It's odd that the history section of this article is as short as it is given the emphasis on the changes that have occurred since 1947. Not something I'm going to get into here though... --LJ Holden 07:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Printer for New Zealand?

I can't find any reference to this anywhere, but it's all over the references. It should be removed --HuttValley (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the relevant body would've been the old Government Printing Office. The reason for the "Queen's Printer" is due to the fact a lot of this article was copied over from the Canadian one... --LJ Holden 07:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm confused. Does the Queen's Printer exist? That's very strange (Wasn't the Government Print Office sold off?) --HuttValley (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed most of the references now. In most cases the references are for the PCO (the Parliamentary Counsel Office (New Zealand)) for legislation. I guess that it's accurate for Canada and the United Kingdom. --HuttValley (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authority stems from

The sentence "...the authority for these acts stems from the New Zealand populace" is an unverified claim. It appears to contradict the previous sentence. (All executive authority is vested in the monarch and her assent is required for parliament to enact laws and for letters patent and Orders in Council to have legal effect.) The current reference to page 3 of the Cabinet Manual 2017 is to the section titled "The underlying principle: Democracy" which explains how the convention of responsible government works (i.e. "The Queen reigns... but the government rules... ...so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives.") At no point does the cited page state that the Sovereign's authority to act stems from the New Zealand people. The cited page states that the government, appointed by the Sovereign (or Governor-General), has the authority to govern on the basis that it is democratically elected.

A more accurate sentence would begin "However, the exercise of the Queen's authority is subject to the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy," which reflects what the Cabinet Manual actually states. --LJ Holden 02:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since this is uncontroversial, I'm making the change, using the wording you proposed.--Hazhk (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --LJ Holden 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the evolution of New Zealand nationalism"

This statement is historically inaccurate. New Zealand nationalism played no part in the development of the Statute of Westminster or any other changes until at least the Queen's title becoming solely "Queen of New Zealand" in 1973. It is much more accurate to state that New Zealand's constitutional evolution was a product of changes throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth. There was not a deliberate policy of patriation until the 1970s. --LJ Holden 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The issue, I think, is that the article is written from the perspective of a Canadian or British reader, and does not address the situation in New Zealand. I have made some adjustments to that section. --Hazhk (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. --LJ Holden 20:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Shared equally"

I see this has reappeared... can we please revert back to the "shared" statement agreed to previously? --LJ Holden 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I reintroduced this wording - being indecisive as usual - but I am happy to revert back. --Hazhk (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if for nothing else it's consistent with Governor-General of New Zealand article. --LJ Holden 08:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquely New Zealand monarch

Mention should be made of the suggestion by Canadian monarchists that New Zealand should have its own resident monarch. This is relevant because several monarchists have suggested it, and because opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want a head of state who resides permanently in New Zealand. The fact that they are Canadian is of little relevance. Potentially a majority of New Zealanders may support this suggestion. There is a good but deceptive source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is deceptive then it's not a good source... it seems from other edits you've made to the article that this is
WP:OR. Also, the wording in the article did not mention that it was a Canadian suggestion. --LJ Holden 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Formatting suggestions

Prompted by the GA nomination I had a quick look at part of the article and have a couple of suggestions:

  1. I'm not sure all the italisation is appropriate. I saw a block quote in italics, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. Also wondered whether some of the other italics should be quotation marks instead.
  2. Formatting of citations can be improved. Particularly faulty are many of the Te Ara citations, which have Te Ara as the publisher, rather than the title of the work. Part of the problem is probably that the 'web' template has been used instead of the 'encyclopedia' template. If it helps, here's a quick template I use: {{cite encyclopedia |title= |first= |last= |url= |encyclopedia=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |date= |access-date= }}. Nurg (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting the improperly formatted footnotes. I have amended the Te Ara citations. --Hazhk (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing cites

a couple of cites doe not lead anywhere and need to be fixed (see Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors):

  • Elizabeth II 1983, VII
  • Elizabeth II 1983, XVI
  • Elizabeth II 1990, 34

Renata (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 09:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA. Apologies that this page had to wait so long for a reviewer. A few initial points. The lead has a few sources not used elsewhere in the article, which often indicates information present only in the lead. Comparing the lead to the table of content, there are some topics that seem important enough to have warranted their own section/subsection in the article, but are not mentioned in the lead. There are a few places which are clearly unsourced, such as paragraphs ending without sources and the List of Monarchs section. There are a few harvref errors that should be addressed. Best, CMD (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Many thanks for taking on this review. I appreciate the initial suggestions. I will address the areas for improvement in the next couple of days. Thanks again. --Hazhk (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hazhk, I'm afraid I think this article is a fair bit from passing at the moment. In addition to the above points, looking closer at the sourcing (criteria 2b, 2c) I found a number of other issues. Some examples: the first paragraph of the titles section goes to a primary source without any of the interpretation, and the first sentence of the second paragraph seems not to reflect a conclusion within that source. Much of the first succession paragraph doesn't appear supported by the cited sources. The second appears only to have a single primary source. The Finances section seems a bit outdated and only based on competing claims of two campaign groups. The first sentence of Representation of the State doesn't seem supported by its source. There are also a couple of shortrefs that don't lead anywhere (Elizabeth II 1983 and Elizabeth II 1990), and Cox, Noel (2008) isn't used. On criteria 1b, in addition to the lead items mentioned above, there are quite a few short paragraphs and sections throughout the article.

The prose (1a) is decent and consistent throughout, with no copyright issues found (2d). The article is focused on the topic (3b). In terms of breadth (3a), the article seems complete as well, comparing favourably against Monarchy of the United Kingdom (the only "Monarchy of X" FA, albeit one likely to go to FAR soon). The article is stable (5), and appears to be broadly neutral (4). Files are either freely licenced or in one case is a low resolution image with an applicable non-free-use tag. Overall, this is a decent article, but the sourcing concerns are as such that I believe it would take longer than a week to deal with them. I do hope that work continues on this article, and as noted before the only article in this category with reviewed status may lose it soon. There appear to be a few useful books with accessible google previews, eg. [1][2] which would help cover some of the areas that seem to lack sourcing and/or mostly use primary sources. Please feel free to message me for further discussion on the article in the future. Best regards, CMD (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you taking time to consider. I understand why you have decided not to proceed with the review at this time. I appreciate the feedback and I'll try to improve the article with other contributors. --Hazhk (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split info from list section, into its own article.

Recommend the "List of monarchs" section be slimmed down, withe creation of a separate article called List of New Zealand monarchs. We've precedents for such articles, with List of British monarchs & List of Canadian monarchs, etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a stand-alone list. It was merged here without any discussion or consensus. Anyway, I support the proposal. Peter Ormond 💬 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you provide a diff for when this was done, if you have it to hand, to save time searching through the history? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I found it here and here, edits by two independent users DrKay and Nford24 - their contributions were unopposed for 7 years, safe to assume there was consensus. A new consensus is thus required to split. Polyamorph (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article which can be expanded and improved. I think this article is already very long and it is sensible to split it up where appropriate have a separate list of sovereigns. Some will object to a separate list on the basis that there is a similar List of British monarchs, but by that logic, why have a list on this article at all and not just link to the British monarchs list? If a separate list is justified for this article then spinning it off into a standalone article is unobjectionable. Some readers will want to see how many NZ monarchs there have been without the other information.
If User:Polyamorph objects then he might argue his case here. Thank you Wilso113598 (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a short list and unless the details about what the "expansion" and "improvements" will be made this simply duplicates content available elsewhere. Polyamorph (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reflect I think you are correct. Wilso113598 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list was restored in the form of a plain list of the monarchs who reigned over New Zealand. I don't think it's helpful to attempt to divide this list into 'British Crown' and 'New Zealand Crown'; diving George VI's reign into two sections is completely original research – it is notional and does not reflect constitutional reality. --Hazhk (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the date of accession

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10#RFC: Which date did Charles III's reign begin, in Oceania? StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs

The template used looks less than ideal to me with room for a rewrite. There is too much detail squeezed in amounting to clutter. And, I think it is usual and probably correct for the dates of their reign to be be under the monarchs name with their birth and death put somewhere else. The list is about them as monarchs not as persons. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have mocked up a potential change to the table in a sandbox, if you think it could be an improvement? --Radicuil (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why two languages?

Why is the Maori term in the infobox, twice? There should be a good reason why the English version alone is inadequate, a reason to show why a reader needs to know the Maori term in order to fully understand the English term. Yes, you are right, no such reason exists. It's an official language I hear some people cry out. So what? Compare the Monarchy of Canada article. No French, an official language, in the infobox. Why not? Perhaps because it is an English language article? Lest there be any doubt, unlike Maori in New Zealand, French in Canada is spoken as a first language by a high percentage of the population. I repeat, why in the Maori term in the infobox? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the translation of his title and of his name? I hardly find those repetitive, but if we were to consider cutting one, I would keep Te Kīngi o Aotearoa ten times over Tiāre te Tuatoru, given it does feel strange to translate someone’s name. (Obviously as names go it’s rather different to a name like Tom Cruise, so maybe my gut reaction should be tempered.) — HTGS (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a translation is used twice, not the same translation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes states "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I think this can apply to both translations. In neither case is the Maori translation a key feature of the main article and a reader has absolutely no need to see the Maori translation to get a grasp of the key points of the article. The translations are not part of a summary of the article but rather unnecessary additions, which weakens the effect of the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I misinterpreted your first sentence. Hmm…
Honestly, as alluded to above, I could live without Tiāre te Tuatoru, but I don’t see much harm in Te Kīngi o Aotearoa at the top. It is used with regularity in official ceremonies and documents. The king himself uses it in his Twitter bio! It’s entirely possible that Canada is in the wrong here—they are French, after all. — HTGS (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I still lean to not having any translations, I suppose there is a stronger case for Te Kīngi o Aotearoa. To me this is a good example of reaching the point where legally imposed, or minority noise making, with regard to promoting Maori culture in all its guises, will at some point reach the level where it becomes unreasonable to say it is an artificially used and does not reflect what is common in society. The Maori name for the monarch might by now be close to reaching that point whereas his name in Maori has not. If that observation of mine is correct, it adds weight to using a case by case approach to using the Maori word in any other context, laborious though that might be. It does look very much as though we have a default position of anyone can use the Maori word for anything if it has only the slimmest of connection to Maori culture. But, I am going off topic... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Titles of Prime Ministers

Hi @Roger 8 Roger:, I was wondering if you might expand on some recent edit reverts. Evidently you disagree with the style of using the titles of prime ministers in this article if they did not hold that title at the time of their premiership. Personally, I agree with you, although I also think the style currently used in this article is hardly the end of the world. Nonetheless, it seems rather anarchic to remove Geoffrey Palmer’s title and then leave the others with theirs. Would it not be better for the entire article to follow a single style, either with or without titles, rather than leave it in an inconsistent state? In an effort to avoid an edit war, I was wondering if you might elaborate on why you prefer this article with an inconsistent use of titles and don't want to remove the others titles? I really don’t think it is particularly presumptuous to suggest that all with titles or all without are the only reasonable options? Cheers, Stanley Bannerman (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is of time slots of monarchs and Palmer was not a knight in that time slot. Good, we agree... I don't prefer a collection of incorrect and correct names mixed together so where you got that idea from I don't know. Do I have to repair the entire subsection? No, I don't so why you presume otherwise I do not know. If it is of any interest, it will take time to fix all the other names, time I would better spend doing something else. Reverting just your edit, yours, required the touch of a button which not only reverted your incorrect good faith change but it also alerted other editors to the other errors that need fixing. If you want something to do then there you are, a ready made job awaits you! BTW, I sometimes fix the odd spelling mistake I find in an article. Does that then oblige me to fix all the spelling mistakes in that article? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:Consistency is best. Let all PMs have their honourific mentioned the first time. Drop it thereafter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of ascension

I am just wondering of we should put British summer time at the end of the date of succession? As King Charles ascended to the throne at 2am New Zealand time? Dbainsford (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think an article on New Zealand's monarchy would use times and dates relevant to New Zealand. That said, does BST or GMT+13 apply just to dates? --
MIESIANIACAL 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The New Zealand (proper) date should be used - with perhaps a note in the text to indicate that this is not the same date as in the UK nor in the other realm "countries" Niue, Cook Islands, and Tokelau. Maungapohatu (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC was held on this matter, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the closing admin's synopsis and explanation, the "consensus" (more like the vote) was pretty weak. --
MIESIANIACAL 05:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps. I voted neutral on which date to use. I believe some editors have attempted to put a note (at least in the infobox) signifying the time zone, but each of them were reverted. I wouldn't oppose the addition of a time zone note, next to the accession date of this page or the other four realms-in-question pages. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria?

It's a little confusing. In the list of monarchs Queen Victoria's reign is given to have begun 6 February 1840 but in the text we can read that British sovereignty wasn't established until 21 May 1840. So, what is the correct date to list here? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter date is correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes accordingly. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles III's title

This sentence in the title section is not correct: "Since the passage of the Royal Titles Act 1974, the monarch's title in New Zealand is presently Charles the Third, By the Grace of God King of New Zealand and of His Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

The Royal Titles Act 1974 specifies Queen Elizabeth II's title and will be amended to specify King Charles III's title but it hasn't yet. He has this title provisionally as explained in this Cabinet paper: https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-10/CAB-22-SUB-0381-pr-proclamation-accession-new-sovereign.pdf BroadArrow (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source only affirms what this article says. --
MIESIANIACAL 03:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Infobox image

So, just sorta putting this out there as a straw poll, but would it be better if we use this photo File:Prince Charles in Aotearoa (cropped).jpg for the infobox in this specific article, seeing as how its the official portrait issed for Charles by the NZ Government (per here). Use of official portraits would be somewhat consistent with articles like Governor-General of New Zealand and would provide a bit more stability in updating the image as the years go on (as opposed to just swapping out the newest image when available). Leventio (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_New_Zealand&oldid=1210523044"