Talk:Realm of New Zealand/Archive 1

Requirement of cites; proper context of the term "Realm"
Hi

I've made edits which I will explain here:
 * While I'm not doubting the term Realm of NZ is a proper legal term it would be nice to have written authority backing up the context in which it is presented here (i.e. explaining it as some sort of unified collection of territories under a single GG). I thought it was just a legal term since NZ probably is in favour of emphasising the free association bit rather than the the whole 'colonial domination' thing
 * Because of the above the summary information has been removed. Unlike the Australian states or the British Overseas Territories they are not seen to be significant in terms of 'national sovereignty' (not the best way to put it)--again the issue here is that I don;t think the RoNZ was meant to be some sort of super-entity. Same argument for the para. "The Realm itself is a collection of former British colonies"--NZ came first then the Realm and not the other way around. That paragraph's inclusion might give the impression that the Realm is the overrising factor in NZ sovereignty.
 * This is without prejusice to the diplomatic etc usages of the term, which I guess is the main reason for the existence of this article.

202.89.157.232 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite
The ref says "The Strange Death of Dominion Status" but the link goes to "The Strange Death Of The Realm Of New Zealand: The Implications Of A New Zealand Republic For The Cook Islands And Niue" they appear to be different articles. Brian | (Talk) 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Opps. Carelessness on my part. --Lholden 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Just excited to find the article. --Lholden 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've added a tag to the top of the article. ATM the article focusses on external appearance (organization of the government etc), whereas the actual significant parts (such as republic, Cook Islands diplomatic status etc) are hardly mentioned. There are important things to be said about the topic, but until then, the tag belongs here. 118.90.44.104 (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Given that the other territories mentioned are either dependencies or in association with New Zealand, it seems misleading to have an article which implies that the "Realm" is an overriding entity which includes New Zealand - that doesn't appear to be the case. The situation seems to be explained well on the main New Zealand article and only repeated here; the "Realm of New Zealand" is simply the area in which Elizabeth II reigns as the Queen of NZ. Nobody would describe Tokelau as being a "part of the Realm of New Zealand", but simply a "dependency of New Zealand".

The argument for a merger is twofold; I think that having this second article is redundant because there is an overlap and the information can be easily conveyed on the main article, and this article could confuse readers into thinking that the "Realm of New Zealand" is the sovereign state of which New Zealand is a federal entity of, or something similar. The Real is not a union of theoretically equal unites (as in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) and following the successful merger of Kingdom of Denmark into Denmark I think this article could easily be merged into the New Zealand article. The New Zealand section could be split up and much of the information on this article could be sent there, and some of it merged into other sections of the New Zealand article.

Perhaps other users can discuss the case for or against a merger? I think the likelihood it hasn't been merged before is because this concept is unknown and unnecessarily split into another article. -- Peter Talk page 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that both the Cook Islands article and Niue state "in free association with New Zealand" and each lack any mention of the "Realm of New Zealand". -- --Peter Talk page 19:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a case to be made that their is a separate Realm which includes NZ as one component. For example, see:
 * The Queen: "Today the Realm of New Zealand comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue.".
 * Interpretation Act 1999: " "New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency."
 * Government of NZ: "New Zealand is an independent sovereign nation. Because we are a monarchy, our country is styled a "Realm". The Realm of New Zealand comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue."
 * VUWLRev 34: "By the late 1950s it would have been accurate to say that New Zealand, including the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency, was a realm, called 'New Zealand'. But things have changed. There is now a Realm of New Zealand, of which New Zealand itself is only one element."
 * Note also that there still exists an article on the Danish Realm. TDL (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears from the links above that the Realm is the area in which the Queen is "queen of New Zealand", the dependences and associated states are dependant on or associated with New Zealand, rather than the Realm. -- Peter Talk page 12:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This page would probably benefit from being set up a bit more like the Danish Realm article, but I don't think it should be merged. New Zealand isn't a unitary state, and its dependencies aren't part of it. CMD (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there needs to be a rewrite at least. -- Peter Talk page 11:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

From the two responses in the last two weeks it's clear that there is no support to merge the two articles. I'm closing the discussion now. --Peter Talk page 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominion of New Zealand Royal Proclamation 1907 was never revoked
The 1983 Royal Letters Patent concerning the office of the Governor-General of the Realm of New Zealand do not legally (i.e., in law) change the long form full name of the country. The Royal Proclamation of September 10, 1907 stating that "the Colony of New Zealand shall be known as the Dominion of New Zealand" on and after Sept 26, 1907 has never been formally revoked (i.e., it is still in force). The long form full name is stil today the Dominion of New Zealand and it Dependences. The 1917 Royal Letters Patent refering to the office of the Governor-General of the Dominion of New Zealand were revoked in 1983, and replaced. However, the long form full name of the Dominion of New Zealand was formally (i.e., legally) bestowed by the Royal Proclamation of 1907 (not in the Royal Letters Patent of 1917).

Additionally, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does not abolish the rank of Dominion Status. The term Realm (i.e., Realm within the Commonwealth) was a comprimise term of respect, and was not an instrument of statutory name change.

70.30.193.143 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment on this at Talk:Dominion of New Zealand --Lholden 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * New Zealand remains a dominion, just because the term may not be used much, does not mean the status is lost - the same could be said of the monarchy itself.101.98.74.13 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Realm surviving republic
This statement is entirely illogical and clearly wrong, and ought to be deleted: "Should New Zealand become a republic it will retain the Ross Dependency and Tokelau as dependent territories and the Realm of New Zealand would continue to exist without New Zealand, the Ross Dependency and Tokelau". If New Zealand becomes a republic it may or may not still include the Ross Dependency and Tokelau as dependent territories. That is a separate matter. But if New Zealand becomes a republic the Realm of New Zealand could not "continue to exist without New Zealand".101.98.74.13 (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section is based on academic research. Would have to see research showing otherwise. --LJ Holden 21:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section is based on an article that appeared in an academic law review. And a most speculative article as well. Is that academic research? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how assessing the current wording of the Letters Patent 1983 is "speculative", regardless it's still a valid source and there's no case for deletion. --LJ Holden 02:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ross Dependency
Has there been any discussion anywhere about this claimed territory? It is not inhabited, no infrastructure and is recognised by a scant few other countries. Is it part of the realm or merely claimed to be part of it? Not the same thing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)