Birds Of A Feather: If Edward VIII had been a less enamoured sex-slave to Wallis Simpson and a more convinced fascist, it is entirely possible that he could have completely upended the British constitution. Royal words, and deeds, still matter - as the political impact of the Maori King's, Tuheitia Paki's, intervention earlier this week attests.
IT’S AN INTRIGUING COUNTERFACTUAL to contemplate. What if
Edward VIII had been a less enamoured sex-slave to Wallis Simpson and a more
convinced fascist? It is entirely possible that a highly politicised King, ably
assisted by Winston Churchill (who, in real life, fought right up until
Edward’s abdication speech to keep him on the throne) David Lloyd-George (Britain’s
Prime Minister during World War I) and Sir Oswald Mosley (leader of the British
Union of Fascists) could have completely upended the British constitution.
Early in 1936 Edward had given hope to millions of
unemployed workers, and heart palpitations to the Conservative Government of Stanley
Baldwin, by declaring that “something must be done” about the appalling poverty
he had just witnessed on a royal visit to South Wales.
British monarchs were not supposed to say such things. But,
let us suppose that Edward had continued to speak out against poverty and mass
unemployment. Let us further suppose that his younger brother, George, the Duke
of Kent, had used his contacts with Nazi-sympathising German aristocrats to
forge an alliance with like-minded members of the British upper-classes? With
the additional assistance of the brilliant outcast politicians mentioned above
– all of them desperate to restore their dwindling political fortunes – a more
intelligent and dynamic Edward VIII would have had every chance of successfully
carrying-off a royal coup d’état.
Even today there are elements within the British
establishment who dread the ascension of the Prince of Wales. Unlike his remarkable
mother, who has maintained the constitutional proprieties impeccably for the
whole of her 64-year reign, it is feared that King Charles III may not be
content to remain above the political fray. Imagine a King who tweeted? A King
who to read his own Speech from the Throne? In the throes of another economic
crisis, and unwilling to be ‘rescued’ by a political class they both despise
and distrust, what might Charles III’s subjects not do?
What has prompted these musings on the residual power of the
monarchy? Obviously, it was the extraordinary, and apparently impromptu,
political observations of Tuheitia Paki, the Maori King. The latter’s
disparaging remarks about the Labour Party, coupled with his de facto
endorsement of the Maori and Mana parties, have garnered the Kingitanga
movement considerable media coverage. It is a matter of some significance that,
to date, media coverage has offered little in the way of criticism of the
King’s actions. Maori and Pakeha journalists, alike, have not thought it necessary
to condemn Tuheitia for stepping into the fraught arena of electoral politics.
The NZ First Leader, Winston Peters, has had no such qualms.
“It is disappointing the Maori King has been used in such a sad way,” said Mr
Peters. “There is no way his predecessor, the Maori Queen, would ever have done
that.”
Perhaps not. But was his predecessor’s reticence born of
what she perceived to be her purely ceremonial status? Or, was her silence on electoral
matters merely a concession to the prevailing political realities of her reign.
For the past 153 years, the Kingitanga has maintained a respectful distance
from the Settler State. This is hardly surprising: military invasion and land
confiscation tends to dampen even the most courageous people’s political
ardour.
The Kingitanga’s long-standing recognition of the Settler
State’s power to do it harm, indicated by its dignified silence, has been misinterpreted
by Pakeha politicians as indigenous acceptance of the rules of constitutional
monarchy. Like his British counterpart’s, the Maori monarch’s status is regarded
as purely symbolic and ceremonial. That he or she might aspire to being an
independent political actor, wielding real political power, is not something
Pakeha New Zealand has seriously contemplated since 1863.
Much has changed since that violent period of our history.
The Settler State is no longer the predatory beast that assailed the earthworks
at Rangiriri. The need for Kingitanga reticence is not so great now as it was
during the reign of Dame Te Atairangikaahu, King Tuheitia’s predecessor. In his
keynote speech to mark the tenth anniversary of his ascension, the Maori King
spoke of Maori exercising dual sovereignty over Aotearoa-New Zealand by 2025.
This is less constitutional monarchy than it is constitutional revolution.
Royal words matter. If you doubt it, then just imagine the
effect on Jeremy Corbyn’s fortunes if Queen Elizabeth II declared herself a
life-long Labour supporter.
This essay was
originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The
Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 26 August 2016.
