We were grateful for the Monday off.
But In Her Majesty's Service? Not us.
This month we were more obsessed with Arthur Green, a bachelor born of reality television, than the royal lineage of the world's primo bachelor, Prince Harry, on his visit to New Zealand.
Most New Zealanders did not throw themselves at the feet of the prince,
Here he was more "DoC star royal" than "rock star royal" - with the birds who gave him the most attention being our albatross and parakeets on Stewart Island.
A fun-filled holiday down under for Harry paid for by the taxpayer. Why? There is value in the promotion of New Zealand tourism, because his visit was covered worldwide.
But I imagine that the same, if not heaps more, tourism mileage could be driven by inviting Kim Kardashian to come down for some kiwi spotting, or Taylor Swift for a paddle down the Whanganui River.
With the British royals, even in their native England, being of interest merely for their celebrity appeal in gossip magazines, it seems absurd New Zealand still has a head of state chosen on the basis of who they are, not what they are. On birth rather than merit.
It makes no more sense to have the Queen as head of state than Lady Gaga.
It makes no sense that in a country so forward thinking as New Zealand - the first to give women the vote, climb Everest, one of the first to legalise gay marriage.
A country known for its down-to-earth egalitarianism.
A country that, despite its size, courts respect on the world stage, a country that wins the Rugby World Cup, the America's Cup, the Booker Prize and currently boasts one of the world's hottest names in entertainment.
A country that has just surged with national pride and identity in marking the centenary of Gallipoli.
It makes no sense that this fiercely proud and strong wee country should be still tilting its cap and curtseying to a distant and increasingly irrelevant aristocracy.
It is time to consider a move away from the Queen as head of state, which is outdated - even dangerous - given the head of state is also head of the armed forces.
An elected head of state would be more representative of the population of New Zealand.
It is timely to debate these issues while the status of the New Zealand flag is in play.
Our flag should be a symbol of our national identity. Changing the flag alone will not change the country. But it is a step towards redefining our identity.
Much has been made of the cost of the flag referendum. True, $26 million is a lot of money, but relatively a drop in the ocean of government spending.
Spending this money is not going to solve child poverty. It is money well spent if it helps cement brand New Zealand in global business and commerce, tourism and trade. Doing that might just give us the means to really tackle child poverty.
Nor is a change in flag disrespectful to those who fought in military battles.
It was apparent to me, attending the dawn service at the Mount Maunganui cenotaph, that honouring the fallen is about honouring those who represented New Zealand as a country. Surely, they fought more for their families, their towns, their country and freedom than the design of our national flag.
A new flag that is uniquely Kiwi, rather than a nod to our colonial past, is a much more authentic way of honouring history.
-Annemarie Quill is a Bay of Plenty Times journalist.
