Monarchy
New Zealand
The Journal of The Monarchist League of New Zealand Incorporated
ISSN 1174-8435
Volume 7 Issue 4 November 2002
The Monarchist League of
New Zealand, Inc.
Patron: Hon Sir Peter Tapsell, KNZM MBE MBChB FRCSEd FRCS
The Secretary, 72F Ladies Mile, Remuera,
Auckland 1005, New Zealand
Website URL: http://www.geocities.com/Capitolhill/Parliament/7802
Council:
Chairman: Noel Cox, Esq., LLM(Hons) PhD GradDipTertTchg AdvCertHeraldrySociety CertTertTchg HonCIL FCIL FFASL FBS
Vice-Chairman:
Merv Tilsley, Esq.
Secretary: Chris Barradale, Esq.
Treasurer: Stephen Brewster, Esq., BCA MBA CA
Councillors:
Nicholas Albrecht, Esq., MA(Hons)
Roger Barnes, Esq., FHSNZ
John Cox, Esq., LLB MNZTA
Neville Johnson, Esq.
Ian Madden, Esq., MA LLB FSA(Scot)
Robert Mann, Esq., MSc PhD
Professor Peter Spiller, BA LLB PhD LLM MPhil PhD
League Officers:
Legal Adviser:
Noel Cox, Esq., LLM(Hons) PhD GradDipTertTchg AdvCertHeraldrySociety CertTertTchg HonCIL FCIL FFASL FBS
Librarian and Archivist:
Noel Cox, Esq., LLM(Hons) PhD GradDipTertTchg AdvCertHeraldrySociety CertTertTchg HonCIL FCIL FFASL FBS
Provincial Representative, Wellington:
Mathew Norman, Esq.
Provincial Representative, Manawatu-Horowhenua:
Kevin Couling de St Sauveur, Esq.
Editor, Monarchy New Zealand:
Noel Cox, Esq., LLM(Hons) PhD GradDipTertTchg AdvCertHeraldrySociety CertTertTchg HonCIL FCIL FFASL FBS
Assistant Editor and Advertising Manager, Monarchy New Zealand:
John Cox, Esq., LLB MNZTA
Honorary Chaplain:
Revd Gerald Hadlow, LTh
Webmaster:
Noel Cox, Esq., LLM(Hons) PhD GradDipTertTchg AdvCertHeraldrySociety CertTertTchg HonCIL FCIL FFASL FBS
Monarchy New Zealand is published by The Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the policy of The Monarchist League of New Zealand. Correspondence should be addressed to the Editor, Monarchy New Zealand, 123 Stanley Road, Glenfield, Auckland 1310, New Zealand. Tel: +64 9 444-7687; Fax: +64 9 444-7397; E-mail: [email protected]
Editorial
In a speech in June to the Annual General Meeting of Save The Children New Zealand, the Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, reviewed the impact of physical punishment and abuse of children on New Zealand families and communities, and how this could be addressed in our society and in the courts. In the course of her speech, Her Excellency discussed the position of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows parents to use reasonable force in disciplining children.
Dame Silvia Cartwright stated that she was not advocating a repeal of the section, which has been advocated by the Green Party, and others. Indeed, she spoke of the parent’s right and responsibility to discipline a child, as well as the concern that the state should not override the rights of parents, and the criminalisation of parents for smacking their children. But she made clear her concerns about the message the law may be sending to parents and others, and the difficulties faced by the courts in interpreting "reasonable" force.
This did not perhaps amount to directly advocating the criminalisation of smacking, but it was widely reported that the Governor-General had tacitly given her support for such a move. By convention she cannot endorse any party policy, though she is entitled to raise issues such as these. Although she did not actually endorse an anti-smacking policy in her speech, she made it fairly clear what her views were. This was widely seen as overstepping the mark beyond which a non-political representative of The Queen ought not to step.
Similarly, later comments by the Governor-General on sentencing policy, at the Institute of Criminology of Victoria University of Wellington, did not amount to advocating a particular policy. But in attempting to keep on the correct side of constitutional propriety she has relied on distinctions of language which will not be understood by the media or the general public. Had she directly endorsed a policy upon which political parties differed there would be genuine grounds for concern. Unfortunately though her critics may have been correct, the news media generally lacks the intelligence to perceive subtle distinctions and represented the Governor-General as making overtly political comments.
It was unfortunate that after the incident, the Prime Minister, in defending the Governor-General, chose to endorse Dame Silvia’s reported views rather than simply her right to speak. Adding that it was her personal view that the office should be replaced with a president was neither necessary nor relevant.
The Governor-General has now accepted the patronage of the New Zealand Pan-Asian Congress, a political lobby group. This also raises the question of whether the Governor-General is being used by the Prime Minister to promote constitutional change, by placing her in a position in which it is inevitable that she will be criticised.
Dr Noel Cox
News in Brief
Golden Jubilee Parade in Auckland
On 18th October, several months after the Jubilee events in the United Kingdom and most of the rest of the Commonwealth, an official Golden Jubilee parade was held in Auckland.
The parade comprised men and women from the Royal New Zealand Navy, Royal New Zealand Air Force, New Zealand Army, and New Zealand Police. The Royal New Zealand Corps of Artillery Band, the Royal New Zealand Air Force Band, a component of the Royal New Zealand Navy Band, and the Police Pipes and Drums were present. The Defence Force also paraded the Queen’s Colours of the respective services.
The Guest of Honour for the parade was the Governor-General, Her Excellency the Hon Dame Silvia Cartwright, PCNZM DBE. The Governor-General and His Worship the Mayor of Auckland, the Hon John Banks, QSO, inspected the parade. Both also addressed the parade, as did the Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Peter McHaffie, OBE RNZN, and the Commissioner of Police, Rob Robinson. There was no political presence in the official party.
In his address, the Chief of Naval Staff stressed the role of the armed services of the Crown. The Commissioner of Police also drew attention to the policeman’s oath to uphold the law in the name of The Queen.
Although the parade attracted a considerable number of people, it was given little advance publicity - or indeed coverage afterwards. Typically, the New Zealand Herald only mentioned the parade in order to report on traffic delays it apparently caused.
Royal Diary
A Coat of Arms for Prince Harry of Wales
In time for his eighteenth birthday, His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales was granted his own coat of arms by Garter King of Arms on 15th September 2002. In keeping with ancient practice he received the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom, differenced by the addition of a label of five points, for the grandchild of a reigning Sovereign. To identify the arms as those of Prince Harry, the label has a red escallop shell on three points, the other two being plain. This is described formally as a label of five points Argent charged three Escallop Gules.
Peter Gwynn-Jones, who as Garter King of Arms is responsible to the Queen for Royal heraldry, said: "After changing convention for Prince William by using symbols from his maternal Arms, it made sense to develop this further for Prince Harry.
"This is especially significant because, unlike his elder brother who will one day see his Arms alter to reflect his changing responsibilities, Prince Harry will always keep the escallop shells from his mother’s Spencer family Arms and, in time, may pass them on to his children."
He added: "I understand that both princes are delighted to bear Arms that celebrate both their parents’ families, and it has been a pleasure to evolve the rules of Royal heraldry in order to make this possible."
The use of escallops does not constitute a marked departure in royal heraldry, but it shows how royal symbolism, like the royal family, has always changed with the times.
League News
Chairman’s address to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
At the invitation of Professor David Flint, National Convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), Dr Noel Cox, Chairman of The Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc., addressed the 2002 Annual Convention of the ACM, in Melbourne, Victoria, last month. The theme of his address was "The New Zealand Constitutional Monarchy and Republicanism".
One of the main objects of the convention was to announce the creation of an educational competition and prizes, intended to encourage a sounder knowledge of the Australian Constitution. The convention was also told of the success of the Constitution Centre of Western Australia. This state government-run body has become a major resource centre for matters concerned with the constitution, and may prove a pattern for future federal and state institutes - and possibly for New Zealand.
It is expected that the visit by the Chairman, and a similar visit by the Vice-Chairman to the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust the previous month, will lead to the eventual development of similar educational programmes in New Zealand.
The royal styles and titles over the years
One of the most visible aspects of the Crown is the style and title by which the Sovereign is known. While many rulers enjoyed a multiplicity of titles, reflecting the number of separate territories that constituted their domains, the king of England traditionally enjoyed a simple style. The addition of Ireland, and the personal union of the English and Scottish Crowns, added new elements to the royal style, but the one essential element remained the single word king.
The development of political and legal independence of the Dominions in the latter nineteenth century led to a call for a royal style which included these newly emerging countries.
The first step in this direction was when Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on 28th April 1876. Gladstone opposed the move, which was advocated by Disraeli, and a vote of no-confidence was promoted in the House of Commons 11th May 1876. Nor was the criticism solely partisan. Joseph Cowen pointed out in the House that letters to newspapers were overwhelmingly against the Royal Title Bill.
In 1901 a series of telegrams passed between the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, and the Governor-General and Ministers of Canada. The subject was the new royal style to be borne by the new King Edward VII. Chamberlain suggested that to reflect the greater independence and importance of these territories, the phrase "and of Greater Britain beyond the seas" be added.
This was not favourably received in Canada, as the wording was an innovation, and in turn suggested
King of Canada, Australia, South Africa and all the British Dominions beyond the seas.
This introduced the problem of whether the smaller Dominions should be enumerated. There was also reluctance on the part of the Colonial Secretary to approve the use of the style king of Canada. He proposed the addition to the existing style of "and of Greater Britain beyond the seas". The Canadians responded with "king of all the British Dominions beyond the Seas", or "Sovereign", to avoid repetition.
The new style finally emerged as
Edward VII by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
Something of a compromise, it nevertheless recognised for the first time the constitutional position of the Dominions.
A generation later, the 1926 Imperial Conference, strongly influenced by the growing political independence of the Dominions, decided on a change to the royal style and titles. "United Kingdom" was removed and the equality of the Dominions stressed:
George V by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
This was embodied in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927.
At the 1930 Conference, General James Hertzog and his supporters argued for a divisible Crown. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931 said that
any alteration in the law touching the ... Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Perceptions of unity of title, and unity of person, had come to be important aspects of imperial evolution. The Statute of Westminster made it clear that the United Kingdom and Dominions recognised the same Sovereign. The Statute stressed allegiance, and the conference stressed equality.
Indeed, it was the requirement of uniformity of succession laws which distinguished the relationship between the Queen’s realms in the Commonwealth from a mere personal union such as existed between the United Kingdom and Hanover between 1714 and 1837- two realms with different rules of succession, Hanover not allowing the succession of a female.
The relationship between the Queen’s realms was not of this latter kind. As the Prime Minister of Canada declared in 1953:
Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada, but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and because the people of Canada are happy to recognise as their Sovereign the person who is Sovereign of the United Kingdom. It is not a separate office ... it is the Sovereign who is recognised as the Sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign.
The relationship between the various realms of the Sovereign, therefore, was not merely a contingent one, but inherent in the institution of monarchy as it has developed in the United Kingdom and in the realms of the Commonwealth.
However, changing emphasis had led to the (non-legal) equality stressed by the 1930 Imperial Conference having greater long-term effect than the (legal) allegiance stressed by the Statute of Westminster.
By 1952 Ireland was a republic, as was India. Changing citizenship laws emphasised individual nationality rather than allegiance to a common Crown. On the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, the Sovereign was for the first time proclaimed by different titles in the independent realms of the Commonwealth. In New Zealand the style was
by the Grace of God, Queen of this realm and of all her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
The Crown had apparently become divisible, although in matters of common concern, such as the succession to the throne, it was claimed uniformity to be still required.
The Commonwealth Conference held in London in December 1952 decided that each member of the Commonwealth would adopt its own form of royal style and titles, but that all the forms would contain a substantial common element. These common elements included one designating the particular territory, a statement that Her Majesty was also Queen of Her other Realms and Territories, and that she was Head of the Commonwealth.
The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm. The Acts also had to reflect the fact that, since 1949, the Sovereign had a special position as Head of the Commonwealth, symbolising the unity and free association of its members.
The aim of the conference, in the words of the preamble to the Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) was:
To reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of the members of the Commonwealth to one another and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as Head of the Commonwealth.
The Act provided, therefore, that the diversity of the Commonwealth realms should be recognised by allowing the Queen to adopt a title suitable to the particular circumstances of the country concerned, but also that there should be a common element, symbolising the role of the Sovereign as a unifying factor in the Commonwealth.
New royal titles legislation was no longer to be enacted, as it had been after the Statute of Westminster 1931, by the United Kingdom Parliament with the assent of the other countries. Moreover, the convention of 1931 that the adoption of a separate royal title for any of the Queen’s realms requires the assent of the Parliaments of the other realms, seems now to have lapsed. It has been said however that any change in the Queen’s title as Head of the Commonwealth could be made only with the assent of the Parliaments of all of its members.
The local element reflected the divisibility of the Crown, but the commonality was not ignored. Without the common elements, the link between the various monarchies would have appeared a merely accidental one. These have been fairly consistency preserved, though, as in New Zealand, the legal form has not always been the style used in the Oath of Allegiance.
The New Zealand Parliament passed the Royal Titles Act 1953. The obsolete expression "British Dominions beyond the Seas" was replaced by "other Realms and Territories", and the new style of "Head of the Commonwealth". The royal style was now
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
In the 1970s further alterations were made to the royal style and title across the Commonwealth. In 1974
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
replaced the 1953 formula. The contingent nature of the Crown was de-emphasised, and the Queen’s royal style recast to reflect more clearly Her Majesty’s constitutional status in New Zealand. This move was said to have been positively welcomed by the Queen.
Before the Bill was introduced the British Prime Minister was informed of the intentions of the New Zealand government. He was said to have confirmed that the change would in no way affect the close relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In accordance with the agreement reached among the Prime Ministers and other representatives of the Commonwealth in 1952, all other members were informed of the change in the royal style.
The 1974 Act still reflects a belief in a wider imperial Crown. The preamble to the Act states that:
whereas it is desirable that the form of the royal style and titles to be used in relation to New Zealand and to those other territories [for whose foreign relations Her Government in New Zealand is responsible] be altered so as to reflect more clearly Her Majesty’s position in relation to New Zealand and all those other territories.
Section 2 of the Act stated that:
The royal style and titles of Her Majesty, for use in relation to New Zealand and all other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in New Zealand is responsible, shall be ...
Yet, according to Matiu Rata, then Minister of Maori Affairs:
[t]he 1974 Act was a critical precursor to the 1975 legislation [The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975] because it established the identity of the Crown in New Zealand by shifting the emphasis away from the Queen in England in the Royal Titles while at the same time emphasising the role of the Queen as Queen of New Zealand.
Stevens, however, thought that the implications were less far reaching:
The Royal Titles Act 1974 has emphasised the position of the Crown in the sovereignty of New Zealand as being distinct from the UK ... The Crown in New Zealand should not be seen as autochthonous. This new status necessitates an examination of the position of the Crown in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and of the role of the Queen and Her Governor-General in the contemporary government of the country.
The changes in 1974 were significant, in that "Queen of New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories" replaced "of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories Queen". The emphasis is not on equality, but on the Queen’s position as Queen of New Zealand being of primary importance.
On the state we are in
Talk of constitutional change has occupied the thoughts of a number of New Zealanders since the mid-nineties. But despite the not inconsiderable press coverage that this receives, the numbers involved are small. While polls may indicate that public opinion is yet fluid and therefore engaged with the issue, my concern is principally with those who actively participate in the debate. This group consists of a smattering of politicians, a few vocal republicans and monarchists, largely in the form of the League.
Of the politicians there are the activists (Keith Locke, de facto mouthpiece of republicanism in Parliament), those who would prefer to keep their powder dry and those who adopt the questionable logic of change as ‘inevitable’. The republicans appear to consist of Dave Guerin (president of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand) and the occasional extremist. Of the monarchists, our own chairman is a point of reference for the news media, though no one leading public figure has rallied to our cause in an effective way.
Of the ‘debate’ itself, it shall suffice to point to the medley of ignorant remarks, half-truths and wild assertions. An obvious and disturbing misunderstanding of our constitution (the matter central to the debate) is apparent in the republican camp; while a distressing lack of awareness, of even the most basic kind, characterizes public apprehension. Earlier this year, while addressing the same topic, I was accused of being anti-democratic: apparently my insistence that individuals should seek to inform themselves before commenting on an issue is a challenge to fundamental democratic rights. I beg to differ, as the intellectual responsibility incumbent on the individual demands an informed opinion.
The corollary of this depressing analysis is that the public must be informed. The question is how? The open antipathy of local news media toward the monarchy precludes the wide dissemination of objective material. Marginalized by a hostile fourth estate, the monarchy in the person of the governor-general is at best ignored. And it is for these reasons that the visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, while successful when and where they were accessible to the public, was an abject failure in every other regard. Incapable of engaging the population at large, the royal visit cannot compare to the response the Golden Jubilee provoked in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
And there’s the rub: New Zealanders don’t care. It is not that they are opposed to the Queen (polls indicate considerable support for her reign), it is simply that they are too unconcerned to participate in what Bagehot described as the ‘dignified’ elements of the monarchy. Republicanism won’t end the House of Windsor in New Zealand - apathy will.
We cannot pretend to ourselves that the monarchy has the public support it once enjoyed. That said, there is a difference between a lack of popular enthusiasm and open opposition. Nor should we fail to recognise that historical sentiment (such as for the role of the royal family during the Second World War) has increasingly little meaning for younger generations. Public will is a fickle thing: witness the appalling comments made in the wake of the death of the Queen Mother, which are analogous to the subtle metamorphosis of the "peoples’ prince" of the 1970s, into the "peoples’ princess" in the 1990s.
Yet there is no way to make the monarchy popular. The appeal to a ‘sexy’ public image (increasingly revolving around the two sons of the Prince of Wales) is a path fraught with danger and too closely linked to the cynical and exploitative culture of mass entertainment. While ‘sexy’ may equate to public appeal in our superficial era, it is a dangerous and unknown quantity. As such it cannot be figured as the panacea for an institution in desperate need of a far deeper grounding in the public conscience.
What then of the monarchist response? I witness the haphazard justification of our monarchy on the basis of the value of Britain, its history and culture. If this is the best defence we can muster then we might as well pack up and go home. An increasingly critical awareness of the colonial experience, an openly derogatory attitude toward the empire and a shifting notion of nationalism make such a defence untenable. Moreover, it damages our own case.
While not questioning the many benefits of our British heritage, I believe that we are now confronted by the need for definition: is this a defence of ‘Britishness’ in the face of multiculturalism, or a stand to save the distinctly local brand of constitutional monarchy which we enjoy? I suggest that too often it is the former. As it is all too easy to characterise monarchists as ageing Colonel Blimps and eccentrics, we must be wary of how we are perceived. It is one thing to be unjustly smeared by the news media - it is quite another to make laughing stocks of ourselves.
I maintain that in order to give substance to our cause, to qualify our participation in a debate which is not going to disappear, we must address with great care exactly what it is we stand for. Should we fail to do so then New Zealand’s monarchy will suffer with us. As the increasingly public face of the monarchist camp, the League need pay close attention to the vagaries of contemporary society. It is not enough to rely on sentiment and optimistic poll results to engender the institution with the meaning it increasingly lacks. The monarchy deserves and desperately needs a more satisfactory response to the very real republican threat. And it is incumbent on all monarchists to address this issue.
In my next article I shall approach a number of matters confronting the New Zealand monarchy. In so doing I shall suggest ways in which these issues could be engaged in order to promote our cause.
Mathew Norman
Address to the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Luncheon, Sydney, Australia, 6th February 2002
On this day fifty years ago the death of King George VI, aged 56, demised the Crown to his elder daughter and heir presumptive, aged 25, who took the title Queen Elizabeth II. As had been the case with his father King George V in January 1936, King George VI died at Sandringham House in Norfolk which his grandfather King Edward VII had built when Prince of Wales. But the similarity cannot be wholly sustained. King George V’s death, which had been expected for some days, took place in the presence of his immediate family. The first act of his widow Queen Mary in acknowledging this was to kiss the hand of her eldest son, by then King Edward VIII, and curtsy to him.
At the time of King George VI’s sudden death caused by a coronary occlusion while he slept, the new monarch was in Kenya on the first leg of a visit to Commonwealth countries which included Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand. The King had felt obliged to delegate this assignment to his daughter because persistent ill-health had compelled him to postpone it from late 1948.
The formal proceedings resulting from the demise of the Crown wait for no-one, in this case not even for the successor. At 11 am on 6th February, that is to say, three-and-a-half hours after King George VI’s death had been discovered by his manservant but three-quarters of an hour before the new Queen even knew of it, an emergency Cabinet meeting was held and it was decided that the Privy Council would assemble at St James’s Palace that afternoon; as an Accession Council it proclaimed Queen Elizabeth II as the new Sovereign but with her style and title significantly altered to take account of changes in the relationship between the countries of the Commonwealth since King George VI’s proclamation in December 1936.
Queen Elizabeth II arrived in London at 4.00 pm on 7th February to be greeted on the aircraft at Heathrow by her uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, and by Prince Philip’s uncle, Lord Mountbatten. Then on the tarmac she was greeted by her seventy-seven year old Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who had been returned to office as recently as October 1951, by the Leader of the Opposition, Clement Attlee, and by leading members of the Cabinet. On her return at 4.30 to her then official residence, Clarence House, the new Queen was greeted by her grandmother Queen Mary in exactly the same way as King Edward VIII had been acknowledged by her on King George V’s death.
The following morning the Queen addressed a resumed session of the Accession Council at St James’s Palace. Dr Hugh Dalton, one of Attlee’s Ministers in the previous Labour government, remarked of the Privy Councillors attending that there were "people one didn’t remember were still alive and some looking perky and self-important". One of those present recalling the Queen’s demeanour remembered that "a slight figure dressed in deep mourning entered the great room alone and, with strong but perfectly controlled emotion, went through the exacting task the Constitution prescribed".
After reading her formal Declaration of Sovereignty to the assembled Privy Council, which involved mentioning her father’s name twice, she said simply, "My heart is too full for me to say more to you today than that I shall always work as my father did". Prince Philip then stepped forward and escorted her from that assembly. One of her future Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson, pronounced that Council "the most moving ceremonial I can recall". It was only after these formalities had been completed that the Queen was driven to Sandringham to join her mother Queen Elizabeth, her sister Princess Margaret, and her two children Prince Charles and Princess Anne, then aged three-and-a-quarter years and eighteen months respectively.
As was the case with King George V, so it was with King George VI. In the chancel of the parish church of St Mary Magdalene on the Sandringham estate a catafalque was mounted supporting the King’s coffin covered by the Royal Standard and this was guarded on the weekend of 9th and 10th February by estate workers in relays of four pending its journey to London for the official lying-in-state in Westminster Hall. Bearing in mind the controversy which was so irresponsibly fomented by the media on the occasion of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, it should be recalled that no-one suggested that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and the Queen’s children should leave Sandringham for London immediately the King’s death was announced; nor was there any call for a flag to be raised and then lowered to half mast over Buckingham Palace. The Royal Standard, which by custom is never lowered to half mast, travelled with the Queen.
The climax of the beginning of a new reign is provided by the Coronation when joy can be unrestrained and unconfined. A delay of more than a year is usually required so that Westminster Abbey can be fully fitted out for the event. In King George VI’s case the gap was shorter because preparations for the Coronation of King Edward VIII had already been set in train well before he chose to abdicate. As the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it ever so laconically: "Same Coronation — different King!" In the present Queen’s case the fiftieth anniversary of her Coronation will be 2nd June next year.
Even in 2004 there should be reason to celebrate the tour the Queen and Prince Philip made encircling the globe from east to west, taking in the West Indies, Tonga, Fiji, New Zealand, Australia and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Some such visit had, as I have already indicated, been the late King’s ambition. King George VI had wanted to be the first reigning monarch to visit all countries of the Commonwealth and Empire. In the event that distinction was to be Queen Elizabeth II’s and for that may we long continue to applaud her!
John B Paul, former Lecturer in Political Science, University of New South Wales
[abridged slightly]
Royal Poetry
This month we have a cavalier ballad similar in theme to the celebrated Colonel Richard Lovelace’s poem "Lucasta". The author of Fair Fidelia, tempt no more, or The Cavalier’s Farewell To His Mistress, Being Called To The Wars is not known. The song was extracted from the diary of the Revd John Adamson (afterwards Rector of Burton Coggles, Lincolnshire), which commenced in 1658. It was clearly written during the early part of the Civil Wars, before the regicide of King Charles IThe poem was first published in 1851.
The Cavalier’s farewell to his mistress, being called to the wars
1. Fair Fidelia, tempt no more,
I may no more thy deity adore
Nor offer to thy shrine,
I serve one more divine
And far more great than you:
I must go, Lest the foe
Gain the cause
And win the day.
Let’s march bravely on,
Charge ym in the van,
Our cause God’s is,
Though their odds is
Ten to one.
2. Tempt no more, I may not yield
Altho’ thine eyes a kingdom may surprise:
Leave off thy wanton toils,
The high-borne Prince of Wales
Is mounted in the field,
Where the royal gentry flock.
Though alone, Nobly borne
Of a ne’re decaying stock.
Cavaliers, be bold,
Bravely keep your hold,
He that loiters
Is by traitors
Bought and sold.
3. One kiss more, and then farewell;
Oh no, no more,
I prithee give me o’er, -
Why cloudest thou thy beams?
I see by these extremes
A woman’s heaven or hell.
Pray the King may have his own,
And the Queen
May be seen
With her babes on England’s throne.
Rally up your men,
One shall vanquish ten,
Victory, we come to try thee, Once agen.
Royal visits
Duke of Edinburgh 1956
The Duke of Edinburgh made the first of his visits to New Zealand without Her Majesty The Queen, in December 1956.
His Royal Highness was accompanied by Lieutenant-Commander Michael Parker, MVO Royal Navy (who was his Private Secretary 1947-57), and Squadron-Leader Henry Chinnery, AFC RAF (Equerry 1956-58). Parker was a 36-year old Australian who had served in the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Navy from 1938. He died earlier this year.
The Duke of Edinburgh was received by the Governor-General, Lieutenant-General, Sir Willoughby Norrie, and the Prime Minister, Mr Holland. There was a State luncheon at Wellington. Public events included a visit to Mt Albert Grammar School. Later His Royal Highness visited the Chatham Islands, where he received a public welcome at Waitangi Wharf.
In the course of the late 1950s especially the Duke of Edinburgh travelled widely. He visited many of the most remote and inaccessible places in the world, using the Royal Yacht Britannia as a base and means of transportation.
Though it was not to such a remote place, the Duke’s visit to New Zealand in 1956 - when he was 35 and the Queen still only 30 years old - was the first by a Sovereign’s consort travelling unaccompanied by their spouse.
Royal Residences past and present
Cumberland Lodge
Built 1650 in Windsor Great Park, south of Royal Lodge, Cumberland Lodge was called Byfield House till 1670. It was later renamed New Lodge, at times was also known as Windsor Lodge or Ranger Lodge.
Cumberland Lodge was built originally in the middle of the seventeenth century by John Byfield, a Captain in Cromwell’s army. Taken over by Charles II, for much of its subsequent history it has been the official residence of the Ranger of The Great Park — a Crown appointment always held by someone close to the Sovereign. Among those who have lived at the Lodge were the first resident Ranger, Baptist May; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough 1702-44; John Spencer 1744-46; and William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (son of George II) 1746-65, his son Henry Duke of Cumberland 1765-90, Duchess of Cumberland 1790-1803, and the Duke of Sussex 1830-43. The non-royal Duke of Marlborough lived there to 1822.
In 1872, the Lodge became the home of Queen Victoria’s favourite daughter, Princess Helena, and her husband Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein. After the Princess’s death in 1923, it was granted to Lord FitzAlan of Derwent, the last Viceroy of Ireland, who lived there until 1947. During 1936 Cumberland Lodge was used for key meetings between the King’s Private Secretary and the Prime Minster, Stanley Baldwin, which eventually led to the abdication of King Edward VIII.
In 1947 King George VI granted the use of the lodge of the St Katharine’s Foundation — now known as the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Foundation of St Catharine’s.
This is a Christian educational trust which was the product of the imagination and insight of Miss Amy Buller. Drawing on her experiences in Germany between the two world wars, she believed that the rise of Nazism had been significantly aided by the great German universities not teaching students to use their critical judgement on the world around them and not providing an environment where the great issues of the day could be openly discussed.
Amy Buller thus conceived the idea of a residential centre where students could come with their teachers and, in a relaxed atmosphere, consider important ethical and social issues outside the normal confines of their degree courses. She gained the active support of the King and Queen. To recognise the prime role played by their Majesties in establishing the Trust, its name was changed in 1968 to the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Foundation of St Catharine’s.
The building is used for short residential courses by groups of students, primarily from universities, who come here to examine, in the context of Christian philosophy, the fundamental assumptions underlying political, economic and scientific activities. Queen Elizabeth The late Queen Mother was Patron of the Foundation, and Princess Margaret was its Visitor.
Cumberland Lodge is not open to the general public.
Letter to the Editor
Sir,
I am disappointed that the New Zealand Herald has seen fit to publish another of Diana Wichtel’s diatribes against the Monarchy. The Prince of Wales was the victim of the latest vitriolic attack. This was apparently inspired by the letter which the Prince was alleged to have written in support of British country people. For that "crime" he was described as getting "crankier yet"; she refers to his "often batty observations", and said that he was "the best argument she had heard yet for banning fox hunting". She also referred to the Prince as an "endangered species", and "a living anachronism", as well as "a known if slightly dotty environmentalist".
Yet the story was essentially based on fiction. The New Zealand Herald must have known that the letter is now accepted to be a fraud. The Herald did not allow that inconvenient fact to get in the way of the story, and proceeded with its defamatory attack on the Prince.
It is fortunate indeed for the paper that princes- like judges- do not generally sue for defamation. If I were Charles I would make an exception in Miss Wichtels’ case.
It is strange that the New Zealand Herald is so actively hostile to the Monarchy. I cannot understand why the Herald believes that it is good journalism, or even in the interests of circulation, for these attacks to continue. It seems that the Herald is determined to sink into the mire of gutter journalism. Perhaps it really wishes to emulate its owners declining fortunes.
John Cox