Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand

message: :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)
thread_title:  Lead balance 

message: :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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: To Sir or not to Sir?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'First monarch'? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Queen's Printer for New Zealand? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Since this is uncontroversial, I'm making the change, using the wording you proposed.--Hazhk (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --LJ Holden 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority stems from 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, much better. --LJ Holden 20:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the evolution of New Zealand nationalism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, if for nothing else it's consistent with Governor-General of New Zealand article. --LJ Holden 08:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shared equally" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Uniquely New Zealand monarch 

message: Prompted by the GA nomination I had a quick look at part of the article and have a couple of suggestions:
#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.
# 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:  . Nurg (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noting the improperly formatted footnotes. I have amended the Te Ara citations. --Hazhk (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting suggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing cites

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

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Don't worry, I found it here and here, edits by two independent users  and  - 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)

text: 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)

text: After reflect I think you are correct. Wilso113598 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split info from list section, into its own article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on the date of accession 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of monarchs 

message: Hi , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Titles of Prime Ministers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: From the closing admin's synopsis and explanation, the "consensus" (more like the vote) was pretty weak. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Date of ascension 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the latter date is correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made changes accordingly. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Victoria? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your source only affirms what this article says. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Charles III's title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox image