Talk:Monarchy of Fiji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fiji  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fiji on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Suggest to merge with Queen of Fiji artcile[edit]

think this article shuld be merged with the existing queen of Fiji article, repetitive


There is some overlap, and both articles should be trimmed to reduce that. I would oppose merging them, however, as they are two distinct offices, albeit held by the same person, and the roles are different. David Cannon 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
maybe it would be good to include the British sovereigns who held the title or held rights to the tile title Tui Viti (Paramount Chief)- Namely Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI and Elizabeth. As the title is synonymous with the British sovereign, it think its fairly accurate the Prince Charles will succeed to the title with the passing of the Queen, unless specifically ended by Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs. Seriously doubt this will happen Fiji's Chiefs are themselves quite proud of the royal family and their links to Fiji. Also to make the article more interesting it would be good to put the order of precedence in the article for the Fiji Chiefs

1. Paramount Chief of Fiji (Tui Viti) Queen Elizabeth 2. Paramount Chief of Kubuna (Vunivalu of Bau) Vacant since 1989 3. Paramount Chief of Burebasaga (Roko Tui Dreketi) Ro Teimumu Tuisawau-Kepa 4. Paramount Chief of Tovata (Tui Cakau) Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu

All other chiefs in Fiji come after the above in regard to precendence and again depends on the province they come from

Think the separate Tui Viti article can be merged with this one, maybe as a separate heading origins of the title and how Queen Elizabeth is rightfully entitled to it
Let's ask a number of Fijian Wikipedians about this. As far as I'm aware, the Tui Viti title was abolished with the cession. British Sovereigns assumed the role, but not the title, per se. But User:Xorkl000 and User:Laulad may know something about this that I don't, so let's ask them. David Cannon 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth?[edit]

While, as I understand it there is no specific official title for the role of Paramount Chief of all of Fiji, isn't it incorrect to translate that title into the Fijian version of Queen Elizabeth's name. While the title is presently hers, it doesn't belonmg solely to her so I propose it's probably incorrect to translate "Paramount Chief of Fiji" as "Ilisapeci-Na Radi ni Viti kei Peritania", (English: Elizabeth Queen of Fiji and Britain) Matt Bray 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting comment and is honestly a tricky one to confirm, from the official GCC in council records for 1962, the Chiefs of Fiji, officially bestowed Queen Elizabeth the Title "Ilisapeci-Na Radi ni Viti kei Peritania" and in 1998 the GCC Council again reaffirmed their allegiance to her by officially announcing her as Paramount Chief of Fiji but with no official Fijian translation. As far as historic records go, the highest title among Fijian Chiefs would be Tui Viti, which again is contestable considering only the chiefs of areas under Ratu Cakobau's sphere of influence recognised it as such. But prior to cession Ratu Cakobau was as such officially recognised by majority of the major Fijian Chiefs, if not all and the Europeans. Taking into consideation that Ratu Cakobau surrendered sovereignty of his kingdom (Fiji) to Queen Victoria in 1872, and as the wording goes on the deed of cession to her and her descendants, it is pretty much safe to say that Queen Elizabeth is a rightful claimant to and holder of the title Tui Viti,and it basically makes sense because if Queen Elizabeth had been male, the GCC Council of 1962 would have bestowed the title "Tui Viti kei Peritania" or "King of Fiji and Britain", "Ranadi being the feminine equivalent. As Ratu Cakobau had willingly given up sovereignty and title to Queen Victoria (no records after cession refer to him as Tui Viti but only as Vunivalu of Bau) I dont think anyone today from his line could rightly make a claim to it, unless the Queen herself surrenders it back. So essentially the Tui Viti title merged with the British crown in 1872 and has remained with the head of the British Royal family since. It should be noted despite Fiji being a republic many chiefs have indicated sentiments of being pro-monarchists. The Late Tui Nayau Ratu Mara attempted to convince the GCC to restore Fiji to a Constitutional Monarchy in the 90's and comments in recent years from Ratu Epeli Nailatikau and the current President Ratu Iloilo suggest them to be pro monarchists.
Just some interedting points to add to the discussion.

Head of State?[edit]

I'm confused, is HM the Head of State of Fiji, or does she just have a special status? Therequiembellishere 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy answer to that. Fiji retains all the symbolism of a monarchy (look at the flag, ensigns, coat of arms, motto, currency, etc) but behaves as a republic independent of the crown. Clearly, QEII remains a figurehead of sorts, though she is not in practice the Head of State. Nearest parallels are probably Rhodesia 1965-70, and Grenada 1979-83. Nudge67 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that Constitutionally, the Queen is not recognized. Constitutionally, she is a nobody. However, the Great Council of Chiefs (a body representing Fiji's chiefs) recognizes her as Fiji's most senior chief. The flag and other symbols retained from the colonial and Commonwealth Realm era (which ended in 1987) have not been changed, for historical reasons - for much the same reason that some southern states in the USA retain the flag of the Confederacy as part of their own flag. David Cannon 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

would it be better to merge this article with the Tui Viti article, leave the lay out as it is just make it a section of the Tui Viti article, some thoughts on the topic would be appreciated, Vinaka, Maikeli MB 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems to have cropped up again. In reading a couple of articles about the subject, I'm not entirely sure if the Tui Viti and Paramount Chief of Fiji titles are synonymous. This one would seem to suggest that they are. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with merge, only if 'Paramount chief of Fiji' is retained as the article title. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
But Tui Viti also translates as "King of Fiji", why favor one translation over the other? DrKiernan (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Soo, the articles should be kept seperate? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I favor a merge if the title she supposedly holds is Tui Viti (which it appears it is since there are no sources for Ranadi), but I think I favor the article being at the native Fijian name so that neither english translation is given undue weight. DrKiernan (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I got it: Paramount chief of Fiji is = to Monarch of the United Kingdom; Tui Viti is = to King/Queen. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's certain that Paramount Chief is essentially the English translation of Tui Viti, then I'm okay with a merge. The only thing is, though, that the sole sources supporting this are news reports, which were deemed insufficient to affirm at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom that the Queen is Paramount Chief of Fiji. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) PS- I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji asking for input. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a single article called Monarchy of Fiji, which would be created from Tui Viti, Paramount chief of Fiji and Queen of Fiji? All the articles are fairly short and there is quite a lot of duplication. Together they would create a good-sized article with an obvious structure, which in summary form would be something like:
The petty chiefdoms of the Fijian Islands were consolidated by the rise of Cakobau who declared himself Tui Viti. He ceded sovereignty to Britain, which made Fiji a Crown colony under the British Crown. In 1970, became a Commonwealth realm. Coup in 1987, became a republic, but Elizabeth still recognised as traditional Queen of Fiji. Then finish with a list of monarchs from 1840s to present day. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that may work. I noticed in reading Talk:Tui Viti that in July someone made a comment regarding a similar proposal:
They're three distinct titles. The title of "Paramount Chief" is, de facto, a recent yet retroactive one, and belongs to the republican era. The title "Queen of Fiji" applies to the post-colonial monarchy (Fiji as a Commonwealth realm, 1970-87), at a time when the title Tui Viti was not (as far as I can tell) really in usage. A merger would seem confusing. Aridd (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So, a merger into one Monarchy of Fiji page is not impossible, but we may need to be careful not to let separate subjects overlap where they shouldn't. (I may only be saying this to myself, as I know I don't have a solid grasp of the topic of Fijian chiefdoms and monarchy!) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See Monarchy of Fiji. If that's OK, then I guess I'll have to do a history merge and set up redirects. DrKiernan (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There didn't seem to be anymore comments so I've done the first merge of Monarchy and Paramount chief. DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tense[edit]

Per [1], I think it's misleading the other way. Both the GCC and the Constitution are suspended; the events described happened in the past.

Per WP:DATED and WP:RELTIME, phrases like "current" and "still" should be avoided in favor of time-resistant grammatical forms. DrKiernan (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to using the past tense, but it does seem more misleading to me than the present tense. It suggests that there has been a formal change or revocation of that recognition. True, the GCC is suspended (the abrogation of the Constitution seems immaterial to the Queen's status), but the current government has made no move to revoke its recognition of the Queen's honorific function as Paramount Chief. Rather the contrary. The Queen's birthday is still celebrated, and, significantly, Bainimarama has publicly described himself as a monarchist, wishing the Queen would one day resume her full duties as monarch. That being the case, I would tenatively favour the article assuming a maintaining of the status quo, rather than assuming a change. Aridd (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)