It is fashionable on the left to largely ignore the activities of the royal family. Republicans among us reluctantly concede that the heat generated by agitating for the early demise of the house of Windsor would push the reality of our economic crisis into the background and would indeed generate more heat than light. But the decision to send Prince William off to New Zealand is a significant event beyond the predictable royal parade beloved by much of our media.
The link between New Zealand and Britain through the royal family reveals much about the political culture of both countries. As far as New Zealand is concerned, although the reverence towards the mother country is fading, there is still a well of sentiment that those who plan royal policy are able to tap into. Right from the annexation of New Zealand through the treaty of Waitangi in 1840 when the Maori people believed “Queen Wictoria” would protect them from land sharks like the philanderer Edward Gibbon Wakefield the relationship has been an exploitative one. Far from protecting the Maori the treaty ushered in years of attacks and retribution of Maori resulting in the New Zealand wars that lasted for most of the century.
British capital followed the British army. For instance the tunnel between the Port of Lyttleton and Christchurch built in the 1870s was only paid off in 1966.With the New Zealand’s economy stricken by the great depression the workless were sent in hundreds were sent into the mountains to plant trees. When they were ready to cut the country looked forward to developing a paper making industry. However, it was discovered that Pilkington’s, the British paper manufacturer, had monopoly control of the industry. The only way the country could exploit its pine forests was by passing control of the new industry to Pilkington themselves.
Visits by the royals highlight a worse feature than economic exploitation. From Churchill’s disastrous invasion of Turkey at Gallipoli in 1915 through to the mismanagement of the New Zealand army division on Crete in 1940 history reveals how the lives of New Zealand soldiers were often needlessly squandered. In order to lessen the impact of the huge casualties of New Zealand troops in World War One Edward, Prince of Wales, undertook a royal tour thus initiating a tradition of dispatching heirs apparent down under. New Zealanders were to be given the opportunity to discover that their imperial rulers were really human. In Prince William’s case he could be shown involving himself in the country’s religious observance – the celebration of rugby. That the royals supported multiculturalism is always underlined by rubbing noses with the Maori and visits to their communities. Ignored is the glaring inequality Maori continue to suffer in terms of income distribution and employment opportunities.
The royal tour to end all royal tours took place just after the Queen’s Coronation in 1953. The Queen and the Duke were received with rapturous enthusiasm as they made their way through the country. Little did the cheering crowd realise that the tour marked the demise of the special trading relationship that had existed since New Zealand’s settlement. This meant that New Zealand produced the wool, shipped it to Bradford and then bought the woollen jumpers back at an inflated value added price. Faced with a serious decline in the British economy Harold Macmillan opened negotiations with the EEC for British entry. It was suggested that he come to New Zealand and make a similar regal progress explaining that the special relationship between the two nations was about to die. He refused this opportunity. The reality that Britain was about to sever its link to New Zealand meant subsequent royal tours became something of an anticlimax. For the first time there was controversy and demonstrations as Maori began to question the legitimacy of the treaty of Waitangi and the seal of approval given to it by the monarchy. This hostility and indifference to the royals was given further impetus when British EU entry left the country desperately seeking markets for its narrow range of exports. When New Zealand was intrepid enough to decide it did not want anything nuclear on its shores and objected to the French testing their dirty bombs in the Pacific, British intelligence were part of a conspiracy that resulted in the blowing up of the protest boat the Rainbow Warrier.
It is not as though New Zealand is ever given the credit it deserves for the sacrifices it has made for Britain. When a four mile gap opened in British lines during the German offensive of 1918 it was New Zealand troops who were rushed to rescue what would have resulted in a complete defeat. New Zealand forces were chosen to lead Haig’s offensive that ultimately led to the ending of the war. In a similar way it was New Zealanders who led the offensive at El Alamein, a battle that saw the turning of the tide in World War Two. Unfortunately, the decline of the imperial tie has witnessed these events going largely unrecognised. Instead, mercenary soldiers recruited from Nepal and used by Britain in its wars are accorded a superior status to that of a young New Zealand visitor seeking to spend time in this country. Birkbeck College has just closed its New Zealand centre with its wonderful collection of academic and cultural materials from the country a further indication of the low priority New Zealand culture is accorded in Britain.
Some years ago on a trip back home to New Zealand I outlined the dysfunctional characteristics of our royal family to an incredulous ninety-three-year-old aunt. It was as if one of the certainties of her world was falling apart. In this she represents older generation of New Zealanders who still unquestionly support the monarchy. I am sure any interest young New Zealand has in the royals and in William’s visit relates to the celebrity status he has inherited through Diana. This is a poor substitute for the ties that Britain has let die since the middle of the last century.