Editorial: What the Queen's death may mean for New Zealand

Queen Elizabeth II greets Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Photo / Getty Images

Editorial

EDITORIAL

When New Zealanders awoke last Friday morning to the news the Queen had died, many speaking on Newstalk ZB that morning said they were struck by a sense of history. This was perhaps not what they expected to happen. They knew the loss of the only monarch they had known would leave a gap in their lives but few might have foreseen that the experience would connect us to an element of our heritage quite so deeply.

For the first time in 70 years we could sense how traumatic the death of a monarch must have been in centuries when they held the unity and stability of their nation in their hands alone. It felt traumatic enough to lose a constitutional monarch. Many on the radio that morning called it "the end of an era" and began to wonder aloud what might change for New Zealand now.

Not much immediately, is the answer, and probably nothing suddenly. The great value of monarchy is continuity. A constitutional monarchy provides this more effectively than a powerful monarchy did. Governments change but their constitutional bedrock does not.
The continuity has been well illustrated in Britain over the past few days. The moment the Queen died, Charles became King. The next day he was formally proclaimed Sovereign in an ancient ceremony at St James Palace, witnessed for the first time in history by the public thanks to television.

Millions saw the assembled political leaders of the United Kingdom, including five previous prime ministers, prelates of the Church of England, judges and public officials, shout "God Save the King" with all the fervour of medieval barons whose allegiance might otherwise be suspect.

The Proclamation was echoed over the weekend in other countries that retain the monarchy as their head of state. But the ceremonies in capitals such as Canberra and Wellington had deliberately different qualities. Indigenous cultures and languages were to the fore and speeches in English were prosaic.

New Zealand's Governor General called it "a moment of deep and historic significance" for this country and said it would be her honour to serve as King Charles' representative. The Prime Minister said: "King Charles has long had an affection for Aotearoa New Zealand and has consistently demonstrated his deep care for our nation. This relationship is deeply valued by our people. I have no doubt it will deepen."

Those were hardly ringing endorsements of our constitutional connection but they gave no hint of an inclination to change it. Jacinda Ardern's confidence that the relationship will "deepen" under Charles is a notable change from her previous equivocation on the future of the monarchy here.

She was referring this time to New Zealand's relationship with the royal family rather than the institution, and her sentiments are probably true of most countries that retain the monarchy. Its strength is that it places constitutional stability in a person who cannot be replaced, and a family everyone recognises. It is ancient, familiar and works. Any change will not be hurried.