Talk:Monarchy of Papua New Guinea

The Queen
So, Prince Charles has been to New Guinea at least three times. Has the Queen ever been there ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Divisible monarchy?
The article states as a fact that the monarchy is separate and legally distinct from that of the other realms. That is a debated and contentious argument, and certainly should not be recorded as a fact. There are practical and legal reasons for arguing against the idea of a separate monarchy, not the least of which are that the PNG Constitution states that the sovereign is the British sovereign, and that British laws pertaining to the Crown have effect on the "Queen of Papua New Guinea". I think that the balance of evidence clearly establishes that the crown has not been divided.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is divisible though. All of the dominions of the former British Empire became Commonwealth realms - i.e., sovereign states sharing the British monarch as their head of state - upon enactment of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Thus, the Crown in Right of Papua New Guinea is a separate legal personality from the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. The different crowns are merely occupied by the same person in a form of personal union. There's nothing preventing Papua New Guinea or any other Commonwealth realm for that matter from revising the terms of its constitutional monarchy so that another member of the House of Windsor were to succeed to their respective throne. That's why constitutional reform providing for absolute primogeniture within the royal line of succession (aka the Perth Agreement) required the agreement of every Commonwealth realm. Mcvayn (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, at least with your use of "clearly." Section 82 of the Const. provides that "Her Majesty the Queen– "(a) having been REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OF Papua New Guinea, through their Constituent Assembly, to become the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea; and "(b) having graciously consented SO to become, is the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea." (Capitalized emphasis added.)

I realize that, a couple of sections later, the trappings of the monarchy are extended to the heirs and successors of the *UK* monarch, but so what? For one thing, there's nothing to say that "heirs and successors" are determined under UK law rather than PNG law--maybe, as in Canada, there's unresolved/ambiguous constitutional authority on the line of succession. I'd argue that, even if PNG DID incorporate UK law by reference, that's still no mark against PNG's determination of its own sovereign. It's like if a US state decides to follow (as they usually do) the federal standard regarding whether a particular expense is tax-deductible. That doesn't mean the state government is somehow merged with the federal.2601:204:D502:1837:E136:4A4C:79E5:64E3 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monarchy of Papua New Guinea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129065054/http://www.igr.gov.pg/constitution.pdf to http://www.igr.gov.pg/constitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
Big thanks to the much needed revisions to this page and the other commonwealth monarchy pages. However, I find this sentence confusing:


 * Queen Elizabeth II did not become the monarch of Papua New Guinea because its people decided to retain her. Elizabeth II is their sovereign because they actually invited her to become their head of state.

I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction between "decided to retain" and "invite"? Elizabeth was already the ceremonial head of state in PNG before independence as Queen of Australia (yes, the formal legal situation in the UN trust territory was a bit more complex, I realize), so the "invitation" seems like just a ceremonial way of choosing to retain her as such upon independence. (Was there any chance she would say no?) The formal invitation that was part of the independence process is no doubt noteworthy but I'm questioning the relationship to the previous sentence here. --Jfruh (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the date of accession
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10 StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Disputed
The Constitution of Tuvalu states: " Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Possessions, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State".

So, it seems Papua New Guinea is not the only realm to have requested that the Queen become its head of state upon independence.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  03:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source states "Papua New Guinea is the only realm to have explicitly invited the Queen to become its sovereign. This may have obviated any need to refer to divine providence in the title. It is interesting to note, however, that several other realms became independent after Papua New Guinea and yet none opted to replicate that coutnry's approach to the title." The constitution of PNG is clearer than that of Tuvalu about the request: "Her Majesty the Queen—having been requested by the people of Papua New Guinea, through their Constituent Assembly, to become the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea..." In what way was Tuvalu's "request" actually made, if at all? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the PNG constitution is clearer and explicit in mentioning the head of state. And there are more sources for PNG than Tuvalu on this, but we can't overlook Tuvalu's constituion. Here is one source which states: "The basis for the office of Sovereign in a Realm is therefore inheritance according to law. [...] Some Realms, however, upon independence, added a further element of popular will to the foundation for the Queen's office in the Realm. Section 82 of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea states: [...] Section 48 of the Constitution of Tuvalu also provides that the Queen, 'having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu'. These assertions stress that it is not inheritance alone that makes a Sovereign. It is the will of the people, as indicated by their request, that provides the democratic foundation for the operation of the Crown in these countries. This melds the concept of popular sovereignty with that of constitutional monarchy." And this source states: "The unanimous wish of the people of Tuvalu that Her Majesty The Queen remain the Head of State for Tuvalu is a proof of the high regard Tuvaluans put on the quality of co-operation that has existed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Tuvalu." But it does remain unclear how Tuvalu's "request" was actually made.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  09:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Former Governor-General of Solomon Islands said in an interview that the people of their country too had decided to make the Queen the head of state upon independence. He said: "In 1975, the people of this country decided to recommend to the then Constitutional Committee that Her Majesty the Queen become the Head of State. This view was enshrined in our Constitution on Independence in 1978." But I could not find any source for this claim.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  09:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm unsure how to proceed from here. All the sources meet WP:RS. So, are we to determine a reliable source is wrong? Or can we blend the information in some way? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since PNG's independence came before Tuvalu's and the Solomon Islands's, we could fudge a bit and say that PNG was the first realm that requested that the Queen as their head of state, and then go on to say that a similar clause was used in other Pacific realms' laws. --Jfruh (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that possibly working. I'll give it a go. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)