User talk:Brian/Temp/HMTQ

Very interesting Brian. I would note that much of the constitutional information for New Zealand is incorrect. For example, the Act of Settlement 1701 is not technically part of our law, the Constitution Act simply says that whoever is Head of State in the UK under their version of the Act is our Head of State. --Lholden 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * mmm I was under the impression that it was an imperial act, that was bought over.


 * I suppose I should read New_Zealand_constitution :)


 * I was planning to ask you, or midnight to run over it before, I looked at publishing it (NPOV and all) :)


 * What do you think about renaming the Queen of NZ article to "Monarchy in New Zealand" as per Monarchy in Australia, and Monarchy in Canada? Brian | (Talk) 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Palmer in his book Constitutional Conversations, the Act of Settlement is only part of NZ law so far as judicial appointments (i.e. independence from the Sovereign) goes. The succession is governed by the English Act, according to our Act. Anyway, the Canadian article isn't telling the whole truth, while it is technically true the Canadians could unilaterally alter their succession law, they're meant to consult the rest of us too. It's only a constitutional convention... but constitutional conventions matter in a constitutional monarchy!
 * Re:the article name - Yeah, that would bring the article into line with the others. IMHO since the office "Queen of New Zealand" is an absentee one, it makes more sense to talk about the monarchy generally; given that most NZers don't think of the Queen as Queen of NZ. --Lholden 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Refusal of Royal Assent
Brian, there is no scope for the G-G / Queen to refuse assent to legislation. No monarch has refused assent to a statute since the time of Queen Anne. Hence, that power has never existed in New Zealand's constitution. --Lholden 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I was meaning to fix that, a nice little drama would happen if the GG withhold consent. Brian | (Talk) 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice enough to bring about the end of the monarchy, hence why it'll never happen--Lholden 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that; if the GG withheld consent, PM declears a republic, so GG sacks PM. And around we go :) Brian | (Talk) 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, the PM has the GG recalled by the Queen, and everyone wonders why the constitutional backstop didn't act as one... --Lholden 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

HMQ opening Parliament
HM did indeed open Parliament in 1990. This was the first (and only) time the Monarch has ever been "resident" (Basically in charge) in New Zealand. --Lholden 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responce. Interesting, was not awere of that, was that because of the sesquicentennial celebrations? (The source I got the dates for the other openings was from a 1980 NZ encyclopaedia, and the 1990 year book, thus did not include anything 1990+)
 * Yep, sure was. It was also when the Queen said some throw-away line about "celebrating the Treaty in our own way". Hehe. --Lholden 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)